China ICBM/SLBM, nuclear arms thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
I feel like an Oracle now!
People need to stop underestimating China's ambitions. They will not be second to US on anything.
Whether its economy, wealth, military power, nuclear power, scientific achievements, China wants to be number 1 in all areas.
Nuke count is not just about efficiency, its about having parity in the most powerful weapon in the world. Also destroying any US delusion to threaten nuclear war just cause they have a higher warhead count. Its about setting perception.
Every nuclear decision was made at least 10 years ago, which means that the acceleration of nuclear development began at the latest during Trump's first term. I bet he used military power - including nuclear force - as a tool of pressure in the last trade negotiations. Since then, Sino-US relations have reached a freezing point.
Where as Biden, like other China policies, he stepped on the accelerator
Last edited:
Loading up on gigantic amounts of warheads is not the rational way to do things. Developing advanced and appropriate launch platforms is even more important. The Americans and the Soviets both produced huge number of warheads and yet many of them are airdropped/launched by SRBM/in stockpile or whatever quack method the nuclear enthusiasts dreamed upon (in artillery shells for example). Ballastic missile count was never very abundant. I would expect that almost all current warheads already have their designated launch vehicle if not already prepared.
No! More boom! Make more boom!
Agreed on the importance of pioneering more advanced launch platforms, being the leader on that, but quantity is also a quality all on its own. You need enough of them dispersed, hidden, and protected to ensure they survive a hypothetical pre-emptive disarming strike in sufficient quantities to preserve total MAD.
Only if sufficiently pointy.
Not necessarily.
IMHO, given the size (and therefore, internal volume) of SSBNs which are always going to be greater than SSNs, there are a few avenues where SSBN-sized nuclear-powered submarines don't have to play the role of SSBNs:
#1 - As SSGNs, where the SL-ICBM tubes can be fitted (if not retrofitted) with multipack VLS tubes. With the 093B SSNs carrying 24 missiles and 095 SSNs (assumed to) carrying the same number of missiles inside multipack VLS tubes - An SSGN with 16 SL-ICBM tubes swapped/replaced with the same number of multipack VLS tubes would mean doubling the amount of missiles that can be dedicated for anti-ship and land-attack strike missions.
#2 - As special mission platforms, where (at least some of) the spaces originally allocated for SL-ICBM tubes on SSBNs can be redesigned/retrofitted for carrying ROVs, UUVs and/or even AUVs for special missions. Mine-laying, intelligence-gathering, tapping/cutting undersea communication lines, etc - You name it.
Sure, using SSBN-sized hulls meant trading off certain advantages present with SSN-sized nuclear-powered submarines (i.e. maneuverability) - But the greater hull volume available could (if not should) be more than making up for that. Plus, technically speaking - SSGNs and special mission platforms may require the same number of hulls as SSBNs, if not more.
Last edited:
So you think China will not build Tactical nukes? They must if they want to deal with US tactical nukes.
Nuclear weapons are nothing but a measuring contest anyway. Everyone knows they won't be used. But you still have to build the capability to scare your enemies not to use their own.
When China was a 2 trillion dollar economy, it could get away with 300 nukes since US didn't consider China a threat to its dominance. But when China became a 19 trillion dollar economy, previous US indifference no longer applies.
Now there is open talk among the western public and western think tankers that US should use nuclear threat to deter China from attacking Taiwan. They think China will back down cause they have so little number of nukes and US has so many.
There is also chatter that US can destroy China's nuke arsenal with a first strike since there is so few of them.
China had to start building its nuke arsenal so that these kinds of thinking is firmly refuted. When China has complete nuclear parity with US, there will not be any delusion that US can win a nuclear war or threaten China with a nuclear war and force it back down.
As China rises in both nuclear and conventional military power, its nuclear power must also rise. Which means equal or greater number of nuclear launchers compared to US and atleast equal number of warheads including not just strategic but also tactical warheads.