09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[banjex]

A large SSBN fleet seems like a waste tbh. You really only need 1-2 boats at sea to provide a credible second strike capability.

1-2 at sea is a fleet of 6 boats tops.

I think the significant sums spent on SSBNs would be better off invested elsewhere.

 

[abc123]

A large SSBN fleet seems like a waste tbh. You really only need 1-2 boats at sea to provide a credible second strike capability.

1-2 at sea is a fleet of 6 boats tops.

I think the significant sums spent on SSBNs would be better off invested elsewhere.

IMHO, until China solves first island chain ( or at least Taiwan ) problem, mobile land launchers are much more useful than SSBNs.

 

[antiterror13]

A large SSBN fleet seems like a waste tbh. You really only need 1-2 boats at sea to provide a credible second strike capability.

1-2 at sea is a fleet of 6 boats tops.

I think the significant sums spent on SSBNs would be better off invested elsewhere.

Agreed, and China expanding mobile ICBM and silo based ... thats good enough in my opinion, but China need to keep up the technology of SSBN

 

[kriss]

You really only need 1-2 boats at sea to provide a credible second strike capability.

Is it really though? If there is only 1 boat during the down time that means only 12 missile. Country like US might think they can tough it out. You could say mobile land launcher get that covered but still doesn't make 1 SSBN a credible second strike capability.

 

[banjex]

The French, Brits and I believe Russian think it's enough.

As far as I know, the first two definitely have no more than one boat out at any time. Not sure about Russia, but no more than three I believe.

Having your 12 largest cities annihilated is plenty credible to me.

In general, I think nuclear arsenals should be about minimally necessary deterrence.

Look at Russia: the nuclear arsenal was the only part of their forces they maintained, soft of, in the 90s. And they continued investing after 2010 when the economy got better. Sure did them a lot of good in the current war.

Conventional forces should be the priority.

 

[gelgoog]

Look at Russia: the nuclear arsenal was the only part of their forces they maintained, soft of, in the 90s. And they continued investing after 2010 when the economy got better. Sure did them a lot of good in the current war.

If it wasn't for the nukes Russia would have ended up like Iraq or Libya. So yeah, it did do them a lot of good.
North Korea clearly got the message, and after initially being in negotiations to give up their nuclear program, similar to Libya, they vastly accelerated it.

 

[banjex]

Did I say get rid of nukes? I said minimally neccessary deterrence. You don't need 1,500 nukes like Russia has to ensure MAD. In fact, I think China's arsenal of about 300 nukes (about the same as France and Britain) is perfectly sized.

 

[gelgoog]

300 nukes is not enough when the US is putting THAAD in South Korea, AEGIS Ashore in Japan, and upgrading their destroyers to use the SM-3 Block II.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Most probably not all of the current 6 SSBNs will be there by 2040, same applies to SSNs. So the production rate is going to be significantly higher, especially if we consider introduction of a new generation of boats.

Even if every single Chinese SSN is replaced by 2040, that's still a copium-addled undercount.

 

[banjex]

300 nukes is not enough when the US is putting THAAD in South Korea, AEGIS Ashore in Japan, and upgrading their destroyers to use the SM-3 Block II.

You could always launch through the North Pole which should have a much lower, if any, BMD density. Yes, I know across the Pacific is shorter, but newer Chinese ICBMs should have the range.