Hence a coup against fattie Kim is only justified when the risks become large enough. But Kim knows that if he becomes a big enough liability, China will seek to remove him. Hence all the purges he has been conducting to try and leave him as the only person in NK to deal with.
You are assuming chubby Kim is a reasonable and rational person. That doesn't seem like a safe bet tbh.
You are also getting your reasoning in a muddle. Either Chubs play ball, in which case their is no need to remove him via a coup, or he looses the plot, in which case all bets are off.
In addition, all of chub's ruthless homicidal rage-purges makes any coup attempt less likely to be successful as he removes any and everyone who might be able to mount a challenge to him.
It's a cost benefit calculation at the end of the day as to naval ABM. I see the top priority for the Type-55 as being able to conduct effective air defense using CEC, preferably against stealthed targets which is a capability that is actually useful. Trying to build an ABM capability will detract from that objective. That's not to say that it couldn't be added to a later AEGIS baseline version way down the line.
What is your basis for saying adding ABM will detract from the 055's ability to conduct regular air defence?
Just because it can carry out ABM does not mean you need to ram it to the gills with ABM interceptors all the time you know.
Yes, naval ABM would be of use in the boost phase if BMs were launched from SK or JP. But there are no credible scenarios where this happens. If they get through the political/financial/technological challenges of building nukes AND ballistic missiles, they still know that if they start launching nukes at China, they will likely see their own extinction from the nukes coming back the way. So is there any rush to get naval ABM ready when the land-based version will already be in place?
That's assuming China is just going to sit back and let them get nukes.
Having ABM gives China the option of forcibly stopping them attempt to acquire the bomb, or to disarm their nascent nuclear capacity before it reaches sufficient critical mass as to be unstoppable.
If Japan secretly built a small stockpile of nukes before they were caught and refused to give them up peacefully, you are risking a nuclear hit to disarm them by force. With ABM, you at least have the option and possibility of neutralising the enemy nukes without suffering a nuclear hit to do it.
A successful intercept is infinitely preferable to suffering a nuclear hit yourself and launch a nuclear retaliatory strike even 1000 times worse than what you received, especially on a close neighbour.
As has been spelt out clearly and repeatedly now. Naval systems have many significant advantages over land based systems, and its not a one or the other choice. You can easily have both.
Plus how close can the Chinese Navy realistically get to a hostile JP or SK coastline?
Pretty close without US interference.
Remember that deterrence against nukes ultimately doesn't come from having an ABM system, because the attacker has a huge cost advantage over the defender. So it comes from having enough nukes of your own. But if we ever get to the point where nukes are being thrown around, then there are no winners, only losers.
Again, that's only the case with established and accepted nuclear powers.
If you want to stop a nascent new power from acquiring nukes, ABM gives you a good half way measure from launching nukes yourself.
Side note, every ABM system doubles as an ASAT system. For the US, the cost equation goes $10million for an SM-6 type-missile to shoot down a satellite which may cost say $200-$1000million.
So I suspect ASAT is the primary driver of the current Chinese programme and ABM is actually secondary.
That's very debatable. ABM can only effectively engage the most low flying satellites.
ASAT is best down with land based assets that does not have to be so restrained in size.
I also find it quite amusing that you were decrying China from spending $200million more on the Type-55 hull with way more conventional capability than the Type-52D, yet a naval ABM system will cost far more for a contingency which is not very useful.
Please show us how adding ABM will added more than $200m to each 055.
Considering a nuclear strike will cost you damage in the billions with hundreds of thousands or even millions dead, even at $200m, its a bargain.
