China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[schlieffen]

I think it's because of the massive amount of unguided or semi-guided rocket artillery the PLA has.

The rocket forces will likely take over responsibly for those (or at least the largest caliber versions of those rockets that have ranges in the hundreds of kms) as well as the guided cruise and ballistic missiles, so it's most appropriate to call it 'rocket' forces rather than 'guided bomb' (literal Chinese translation for missile) forces, which would implicitly exclude all the guided stuff.

That’s extremely unlikely IMO. Most of the long range rocket launchers are meant for export market and are not fielded by PLA ground force in numbers. The only long range rocket mass deployed by PLA is the PHL03, which depends on the type of ammunition has a range of 80-150km. That sits perfectly well in the category of field artillery and will remains most likely under army control. Furthermore, most of these long range rockets have some sort of rudimentary guidance (inertial or GNSS) to give them some useful accuracy at maximum range, so the distinction between missile and rocket is actually blurred.

 

[schlieffen]

I don't understand why China follow the USSR/Russian model of having a seperate "Strategic Missile Troops or Strategic Rocket Forces" branch instead of the western model of having strategic nuclear force in every arm forces branch (eg. Air Force, Navy, and Army)? Isn't it better to have each branch in control of of their own nuclear weapon creates more redunency and thus survivability?

Centralised control. The Chinese military like their soviet counterparts naturally prefer centralised control of nuclear warheads. While the soviets were later force to distribute some nukes to local commands due to the massive size of their arsenal and the high level of readiness required for cold war confrontation, the Chinese face no such dilemmas. Their nuclear arsenal has always been small compared with the superpowers, and by design the nuclear force was kept at low readiness in peace time as Chinese nuclear strategy does not embrace pre-emptive attack or even instant retaliation. So boomers did not patrol with live nukes and warheads were not mounted on missiles. The latter part might have changed recently, but the total number of warheads is still small and means of deliver limited so it’s probably not impractical for the high command to track every single nuke at any time of the year and be assured that they’re on reliable hands.


BTW, PLAN does have its organic nuclear detachment although warheads were kept in shore storage and are not sent out with boomers (again that allegedly chanced since the comissioning of 094 and JL-2). The situation with the PLAAF is a bit fuzzy. The PLAAF academy does not have nuclear related disciplines (like the army, unlike the navy) so many believed no nukes were under air force custody, although presumably some aircrafts can theoretically carry nukes if needed. However as the recent statement that H-6K bomber carries a dual-deterrence role (nuclear and conventional) some believed that might have changed as well.

 

[FORBIN]

I don't understand why China follow the USSR/Russian model of having a seperate "Strategic Missile Troops or Strategic Rocket Forces" branch instead of the western model of having strategic nuclear force in every arm forces branch (eg. Air Force, Navy, and Army)? Isn't it better to have each branch in control of of their own nuclear weapon creates more redunency and thus survivability?.

As you say coz China have same or almost military organization/TOE as USSR/Russia and don' t forget USSR help end 1950's for do a modern Chinese Army, political/Military doctrine it is.

But Air defense is not independent.

 

[Ultra]

As you say coz China have same or almost military organization/TOE as USSR/Russia and don' t forget USSR help end 1950's for do a modern Chinese Army, political/Military doctrine it is.

But Air defense is not independent.

Both Russia and China started out the same - communists following the same ideology, but they both deviated from that dramatically since long time ago. Russia is not USSR anymore and China isn't the old China of 60s anymore. Russia follow their particular doctrine because of their need - while China is going through its own changes too.

I just think that a highly centralized command structure is not particularly suited to the Chinese. Havn't they learn from Gulf Wars (which Chinese studied extensively) that the American love their "decapitation" strike? A command structure that's lacking multiple redundencies at every level will be defeated by a structure that does. And US is a superpower partially because of that - it has two defence departments (DoD, DHS), multiple intelligence agencies eg. NSA, CIA, FBI DI, ODNI, DIA, ONI, NRO.....in fact they have so many they have to call it Intelligence "community"!

There are actually 17 of them!

Which is ridicules when you consider most countries have only 1 or 2.
If anything, China should follow American model, which is made to be the most survivable organization on the face of the earth. Its a reason why they follow nuclear triads when most of other countries don't - even India got a clue on and follow the american model.

 

[PanAsian]

Both Russia and China started out the same - communists following the same ideology, but they both deviated from that dramatically since long time ago. Russia is not USSR anymore and China isn't the old China of 60s anymore. Russia follow their particular doctrine because of their need - while China is going through its own changes too.

I just think that a highly centralized command structure is not particularly suited to the Chinese. Havn't they learn from Gulf Wars (which Chinese studied extensively) that the American love their "decapitation" strike? A command structure that's lacking multiple redundencies at every level will be defeated by a structure that does. And US is a superpower partially because of that - it has two defence departments (DoD, DHS), multiple intelligence agencies eg. NSA, CIA, FBI DI, ODNI, DIA, ONI, NRO.....in fact they have so many they have to call it Intelligence "community"!

There are actually 17 of them!

Which is ridicules when you consider most countries have only 1 or 2.
If anything, China should follow American model, which is made to be the most survivable organization on the face of the earth. Its a reason why they follow nuclear triads when most of other countries don't - even India got a clue on and follow the american model.

China is more concerned with factionalism fracturing the country, as its huge population, culture of personal networks, and fragile central authority despite appearances and stereotypes is naturally prone to factionalism already. So I don't see them changing their organizational preferences away from centralization. Also setups with a multitude of intelligence agencies do have co-ordination issues.

On the other hand I do think that with all the ongoing military reforms in China where they are trying to empower lower level personnel to improve performance that inherently they have to decentralize command more, nuclear forces included. This is fine especially with nuclear forces as it is not a likely tool for political infighting.

 

[schlieffen]

As you say coz China have same or almost military organization/TOE as USSR/Russia and don' t forget USSR help end 1950's for do a modern Chinese Army, political/Military doctrine it is.

But Air defense is not independent.

Air defense force was made an independence branch of PLA briefly between 1955 and 1957, before it was absorbed by the air force. I think it has something to do with the fact that China realized it was unable to build a Soviet-style massive air defense network covering its entire territory, so it make sense to let the air force take over point defense which was all that can be afforded.


Both USSR and USA spent an absurd amount of resource on network-centric, semi-automatic air defense systems in the 50s to protect homeland against enemy strategic bombers. That’s something China could not hope to afford.

 

[schlieffen]

Both Russia and China started out the same - communists following the same ideology, but they both deviated from that dramatically since long time ago. Russia is not USSR anymore and China isn't the old China of 60s anymore. Russia follow their particular doctrine because of their need - while China is going through its own changes too.

I just think that a highly centralized command structure is not particularly suited to the Chinese. Havn't they learn from Gulf Wars (which Chinese studied extensively) that the American love their "decapitation" strike? A command structure that's lacking multiple redundencies at every level will be defeated by a structure that does. And US is a superpower partially because of that - it has two defence departments (DoD, DHS), multiple intelligence agencies eg. NSA, CIA, FBI DI, ODNI, DIA, ONI, NRO.....in fact they have so many they have to call it Intelligence "community"!


Which is ridicules when you consider most countries have only 1 or 2.
If anything, China should follow American model, which is made to be the most survivable organization on the face of the earth. Its a reason why they follow nuclear triads when most of other countries don't - even India got a clue on and follow the american model.

America overbuilt its intelligence infrastructure. That’s hardly a shining example that other countries should follow.


For about 10 years the American intelligence community seriously believe that the Soviet embassy in DC and her consulate in San Francisco, Huston, NYC and Seattle each has an megaton H-bomb planted underground that would be triggered when war broke out. Fighting the communist underground network that are allegedly conscripting smuggle nukes into USA was a central theme of McCarthyism, and did not die off with his downfall. Absurd amount of resource was spend on the survivability of command and control system to ensure that POTUS or his designated successor would not be taken out by a Soviet sneak attack, which we learned after Glasnost and the collapse of USSR that the Soviets never seriously contemplated. These are the sort of hysteria during the 50s' red scare that led to the ballooning of the power of CIA and further expansion of Hoover’s FBI empire.


Later LBJ would admit that United States overbuilt its intelligence service especially its domestic security apparatus, its nuclear weapon stockpile and the delivery force all because of they misread Soviet behavior, and grossly overestimated Soviet capability and belligerence. That gradually chanced in the 60s, and paved the way to détente. However, the bureaucratic empire of the intelligence services have been built, and like any modern bureaucratic establishments are extremely difficult to undone. I’m not even bringing in the elephant in the room, namely the JFK case…

 

[SpicySichuan]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[SpicySichuan]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[SpicySichuan]

Finally found the video. Obviously the DF-31A TEL's "fuel pressure" system has some problems under the -20 Celsius environment, so backup heating systems are necessary.