Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

[clockwork]

Most of our planning isn't based around warhead count, it's centered on exchange salvo bandwidth to BMD saturability.

Also, what kind of BMD are you talking about here, GMD? There aren't exactly many interceptors to saturate there

 

[supersnoop]

I still think there are a lot of surprises that don’t require killing Pelosi that are within the realm of possibility that we haven’t even touched on.

Can you imagine something like some sleeper ROCAF pilots taking shiny new F-16Vs to Fujian? If they can corrupt Generals, certainly pilots are not untouchable. With Pelosi in the sky, it would be too risky to fire on them.

There is also the possibility of some kind of massive cyberattack, maybe triggering a nationwide internet blackout, or considering the weak electrical infrastructure, actual blackout.

 

[texx1]

This.

The tepid response to Doklam emboldened the Jai Hinds to attempt Galwan, which led to bloodshed anyway.

If Xi launched a limited punitive defensive campaign against India over Galwan, military prestige gained from that victory would have given him a good deal of political maneuvering rooms over this Pelosi's visit.

The dominating domestic narrative at time was that PRC chose restraint over Galwan because Taiwan was far more important. Now the Taiwan problem has come knocking.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Actually yes, it's extremely reasonable to expect the majority of those to be decoys. Each and every one would have to be disabled or destroyed in order to eliminate the PLARF's second-strike capability from remaining silos, which reduces single salvo deliverable yield to other counterforce targets. Blowing up nuclear silos is really hard, and they serve as an extremely effective "sponge," imposing serious virtual attrition on salvo targeting and weaponeering profiles.

that would be inconsistent with all other silo basings that we've seen from US and Russia, and from recently declared LoW posture from Yang Chengjun. but it's still possible.

 

[clockwork]

that would be inconsistent with all other silo basings that we've seen from US and Russia, and from recently declared LoW posture from Yang Chengjun. but it's still possible.

They did construct many decoy silos IIRC for the DF-5s so it's possible. But I highly doubt *most* of the new silos would be left unfilled.

Though that was many decades ago & I think the feasibility of fake silos might've decreased a lot over time with more satellites/better constant coverage overhead.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

They have analysts in CIA whose sole job is to decipher which ones are fake and real ....

Then it would be the battle between the Chinese silo builders of the silos and CIA analysts.

If the Chinese silo builders do their job better, then less Chinese cities and towns would be nuked. If the CIA analysts do their job better, then they could waste less of their nukes.

 

[watdahek]

So I was reading up on the 1965 Hainan Island Air Battles, and thought it might be relevant to the Pelosi trip. China and US literally fired missiles at each other but were able to proceed to pretend that nothing happened. This is obviously highly risky, and situations are vastly different compared to 1965. What do you guys think?

Similar scenario happened at Galwan, both sides had people killed in the exchange, but cooler heads prevailed.

Edit: On second thought, it may not be that relevant, because the most important aspect of Pelosi visit is whether it is actually crossing a red line or not. If it is crossing a red line, China will have a variety of response it can choose from, from similar exchanges to the 1965 air war all the way to full scale war. If the visit is not crossing a red line, then no kinetic response is needed.

 

[yrydzd]

New recruit here. I have been watching you guys' excellent analyses these days, but I have never seen one thing being mentioned: maybe China DO want a war with the US right now. What China afraids, and IMO the worst senerio for China, is fighting a proxy war with one of the US lapdogs and the US could just relax and watch while sanction the fck of China. Directly fighting the US will give the US no such luxury and it has to be extensively invloved so it doesn't have the attention and resources to resolve what has been brewing internally. Shoot Pelosi down, either America retaliates and gets directly involved in a geographically disadvantagous war, or does not and lose the facade of global hegemony. Either way, it's good for China. The timing is also perfect, when America is in high inflation and a technical recession. I would see this as an oppurtunity quite hard to come by.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China should send out fighters and when the US sends out their fighters to check on them, they'll all have anti-ship missiles hanging off their wings.

 

[Abominable]

If it's worth anything, it's not like we know either - but most folks here privately estimate anywhere from 400 to 550 warheads, though we also presume the majority of these aren't mated to delivery vehicles, and are instead stored in hardened facilities to facilitate a more survivable second-strike capability aboard road-mobile TELs. Most of our planning isn't based around warhead count, it's centered on exchange salvo bandwidth to BMD saturability.

Interesting guess, what would you be basing it on? Would that be actual warheads or payloads (i.e. multiple warheads in one package)

I think the limiting factor for China's nuclear arsenal is not fissile material, but tritium output.