cloyce
Junior Member
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
They can use a nuclear first strike the take out land based silos.
They can use a nuclear first strike the take out land based silos.
09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
vesicles
Colonel
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
A nuclear first strike in the form of ICBM will be detected the moment it is launched and retaliation will be launched long before the first strike missiles get to their targets, the scenario depicted in the Terminator movies. And this is also what the nuclear deterrence is about. And this is also why number of nukes does not matter. You don't need thousands and thousands of nukes for this. As long as you have enough to overcome the missile defense network, the deterrence will achieve its goal. Anything extra will just become a financial burden for the nation.
A nuclear first strike in the form of ICBM will be detected the moment it is launched and retaliation will be launched long before the first strike missiles get to their targets, the scenario depicted in the Terminator movies. And this is also what the nuclear deterrence is about. And this is also why number of nukes does not matter. You don't need thousands and thousands of nukes for this. As long as you have enough to overcome the missile defense network, the deterrence will achieve its goal. Anything extra will just become a financial burden for the nation.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
[SUB][/SUB]
Any nation with a nuclear deterrent will view ANY effort to detroy those nuclear weapons as tantamount to a nuclear attack, because without them they lose the deterrent and therefore become vulnerable to nuclear attack.
This is also why SSBNs work. Any convetnional effort to remove them would be viewed the same.
Any nation who is making a concerted effort to sink SSBNs is a nation that is most probably planning a first strike and wants to remove the 2nd strike threat just before or as they do so.
Those nations who are capable will shadow every SSBN they can, and they do so so they can pre-empt them if they detect that they are launching a first strike, or, as I say, so they can illiminate them before they launch a nuclear strike themselves.
Going after ICBMs or SSBNs in any fashion is a very dangerous and dicey propsition. Knowing where they are (if you can) is important...but only strategically. Acting on that knowledge, IMHO, would only occur in the most dire of circumstances when the balloons had either already gone up, or when they were in the process of going up anyway.
[SUB][/SUB]
...and generally the deternece works whether someone is trying to take out the strategic nuclear force with nuclear weapons or conventionally.
Any nation with a nuclear deterrent will view ANY effort to detroy those nuclear weapons as tantamount to a nuclear attack, because without them they lose the deterrent and therefore become vulnerable to nuclear attack.
This is also why SSBNs work. Any convetnional effort to remove them would be viewed the same.
Any nation who is making a concerted effort to sink SSBNs is a nation that is most probably planning a first strike and wants to remove the 2nd strike threat just before or as they do so.
Those nations who are capable will shadow every SSBN they can, and they do so so they can pre-empt them if they detect that they are launching a first strike, or, as I say, so they can illiminate them before they launch a nuclear strike themselves.
Going after ICBMs or SSBNs in any fashion is a very dangerous and dicey propsition. Knowing where they are (if you can) is important...but only strategically. Acting on that knowledge, IMHO, would only occur in the most dire of circumstances when the balloons had either already gone up, or when they were in the process of going up anyway.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Agreed, so simply China have more credible options by having credible SSBNs. Also I agree that China's ICBMs is probably more secured than 094 (even 094 is quite secured as well). Having credible ICBM and SSBN will just make things much more complicated for the potential enemy (e.g China or Russia).
A small correction; not all declared nuclear nations have SSBN, only USA, Russia, the UK, France and China and the other countries India, Pakistan and NK don't have SSBN (not counting Israel)
Agreed, so simply China have more credible options by having credible SSBNs. Also I agree that China's ICBMs is probably more secured than 094 (even 094 is quite secured as well). Having credible ICBM and SSBN will just make things much more complicated for the potential enemy (e.g China or Russia).
A small correction; not all declared nuclear nations have SSBN, only USA, Russia, the UK, France and China and the other countries India, Pakistan and NK don't have SSBN (not counting Israel)
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
And the same could not be said of the US or Russia? Guess which arm of the nuclear trident both those countries considers the most important?
Firstly of all, ICBMs are not the only means to deliver nuclear weapons. Stealth bombers, cruise missiles and SLBMs can all be used, and used in such a way as to give minimal warning and also create enough ambiguity as to who is launching the nuclear strike to make it a catch-22 situation for you if you rely too heavily on land based missiles that that first enemy nuclear strike is targeting, especially in a surprise attack. Provided you even have a chance to retaliate as a SLBM attack, launched from close to your shores, could give you minutes to respond.
Say a dozen SLBMs suddenly popped out of the middle of the Ocean and is heading towards your nuclear solids and mobile launchers, and you have potentially minutes to decide what to do before the enemy missiles hit before your forces can launch their missiles, just who do you launch against and what do you target?
What if country B launched against you knowing your automatic response is to lacuna against country A?
Even if country A brazenly launched the attack from its own silo based missiles, what do you target in return? Just their land based silos? Well most those are now empty, and their primary nuclear strike power is out at sea in SSBNs anyways.
You can launch at his silos, but you know that won't even come close to killing his nuclear strike capability. But since you don't have SSBNs, his nukes will kill the vast majority of your own, already very tiny in comparison, nuclear arsenal. What if the first strike is just a trick to get you to either waste your own missiles or allow them to be destroyed so he can launch a second wave at your cities, when you will be near powerless to respond on kind? Do you only limit yourself to just attacking enemy nuclear launch sites and risk leaving yourself at their mercy after your own nuclear arsenal has either been destroyed or expended, or do you just launch everything you got and take everyone to hell with you?
Those are all impossible dilemmas with no real correct answer, and if you don't have a nuclear trident, you force yourself to have to make that choice within minutes of finding out you are under nuclear attack.
What good SSBNs gives you is the two-fold insurance that firstly, all enemies would have no confidence that they would be able to kill all your nukes.
Secondly, it gives you leaders the luxury of time to figure out what happened and decide the best response over the course do days or weeks rather than hours and minutes.
Those are just some very basic examples of why a nuclear trident centred around a strong SSBN force is essential in establishing and maintaining credible nuclear deterrence.
And the same could not be said of the US or Russia? Guess which arm of the nuclear trident both those countries considers the most important?
Firstly of all, ICBMs are not the only means to deliver nuclear weapons. Stealth bombers, cruise missiles and SLBMs can all be used, and used in such a way as to give minimal warning and also create enough ambiguity as to who is launching the nuclear strike to make it a catch-22 situation for you if you rely too heavily on land based missiles that that first enemy nuclear strike is targeting, especially in a surprise attack. Provided you even have a chance to retaliate as a SLBM attack, launched from close to your shores, could give you minutes to respond.
Say a dozen SLBMs suddenly popped out of the middle of the Ocean and is heading towards your nuclear solids and mobile launchers, and you have potentially minutes to decide what to do before the enemy missiles hit before your forces can launch their missiles, just who do you launch against and what do you target?
What if country B launched against you knowing your automatic response is to lacuna against country A?
Even if country A brazenly launched the attack from its own silo based missiles, what do you target in return? Just their land based silos? Well most those are now empty, and their primary nuclear strike power is out at sea in SSBNs anyways.
You can launch at his silos, but you know that won't even come close to killing his nuclear strike capability. But since you don't have SSBNs, his nukes will kill the vast majority of your own, already very tiny in comparison, nuclear arsenal. What if the first strike is just a trick to get you to either waste your own missiles or allow them to be destroyed so he can launch a second wave at your cities, when you will be near powerless to respond on kind? Do you only limit yourself to just attacking enemy nuclear launch sites and risk leaving yourself at their mercy after your own nuclear arsenal has either been destroyed or expended, or do you just launch everything you got and take everyone to hell with you?
Those are all impossible dilemmas with no real correct answer, and if you don't have a nuclear trident, you force yourself to have to make that choice within minutes of finding out you are under nuclear attack.
What good SSBNs gives you is the two-fold insurance that firstly, all enemies would have no confidence that they would be able to kill all your nukes.
Secondly, it gives you leaders the luxury of time to figure out what happened and decide the best response over the course do days or weeks rather than hours and minutes.
Those are just some very basic examples of why a nuclear trident centred around a strong SSBN force is essential in establishing and maintaining credible nuclear deterrence.
ludasmatyi
Junior Member
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
This thread is for specific discussion regarding the PLAN Type 093 Shang class nuclear attack submarine (SSN), and the PLAN Type 094 Shin class nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). It should include discussions all about the various boats and the enhancements and improvements being made to those classes.
According this French magazine specialized for Navies who is serious
3 Type 094 in service ( 409, 410, 411 ) we know but 1 in trial, 414? and seems 2 new under construction maybe Type 096 ? with China it is of course always very difficult to know these things exactly.
That seen late last year at Huludao shipyard would be the 5th.
3 Type 094 in service ( 409, 410, 411 ) we know but 1 in trial, 414? and seems 2 new under construction maybe Type 096 ? with China it is of course always very difficult to know these things exactly.
That seen late last year at Huludao shipyard would be the 5th.
Thanks, Forbin. Excellent article and excellent info. Do they have an English version of their magazine that someone could subscribe to?
Anyhow, I had always heard through US sources that 2-3 Type 094s had been built and that they were being followed by 3-4 upgraded versions, for a total of six boats all together before the Type 096 was going to be built.