China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
coolieno99
Junior Member
Dr. Strangelove
Blackstone
Brigadier
And as long Mao's strategy still works, which incidentally requires cooperation from potential enemies, Zhongnanhai wouldn't feel the need to build more (new) nuclear weapons. Modernize existing ones, yes; innovate/improve/invent delivery platforms, yes; safeguard capacity to deliver second strikes; yes. But, beyond that, it's not in China's interests to increase nuclear stockpiles.
So, is Chairman Mao's strategy still working? Some anecdotal evidence suggest it still works with Washington. Below is a video link where Hugh White, a former Australian Defense Ministry official, made an interesting comment on Beijing's nuclear deterrence. The relevant part is from 1:17:55 mark to 1:18:25. If White is anywhere near correct, then Japan, Taiwan, and everyone else in Asia should wake up and smell the coffee.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
@delft, quote is broken, but in relation to your question.
The difference, and why that report is utterly wrong, is because China is looking at history with cold clear eyes, whereas those western scholars are looking at it through the rose-tinted specitcals of wishful thinking and western self-serving media spin.
The west may say pretty words, but the reality is they never have, and never will accept parity.
If they were willing to accept parity, the whole Cold War need not have happened.
When the west say 'deterrence' what they actually mean is 'dominance'.
Even today, there are plenty of chicken hawks getting constipated about China's improving sea based nuclear delivery capabilities and its longer ranged land based missiles.
If China expanded its nuclear arsenal to even half the US total, you would see such alarm in Washington that a new arms race would be all but guaranteed.
China is very keen to avoid an overt arms race, or at least delay it for as long as possible.
China's (again) very sober assessment of nuclear weapons is that once a nation has passed a certain critical mass of weapons number and yield, it's how many warheads you can drop on the 'enemies' heads that counts. Having 10,000 warheads, but precisely zero missiles with sufficient range to hit the enemy where they live has far less deterrence than having 100 warheads that could all hit anywhere on the enemy home territories.
That is why China is focusing its money on nuclear delivery methods rather than more warheads that could not reach the 'enemy'.
The reason China has limit itself to a few hundred warheads is likely based on the limitations of this planet we inhabit.
If China was to fire off its entire nuclear arsental at an enemy, and they fired back the same number of weapons, the combined force of 600-1000 nukes going off at pretty much the same time would almost certainly end life on earth as we know it.
Having and using more nukes than that would merely push the human race from critically endangered to full blown extinct.
The difference, and why that report is utterly wrong, is because China is looking at history with cold clear eyes, whereas those western scholars are looking at it through the rose-tinted specitcals of wishful thinking and western self-serving media spin.
The west may say pretty words, but the reality is they never have, and never will accept parity.
If they were willing to accept parity, the whole Cold War need not have happened.
When the west say 'deterrence' what they actually mean is 'dominance'.
Even today, there are plenty of chicken hawks getting constipated about China's improving sea based nuclear delivery capabilities and its longer ranged land based missiles.
If China expanded its nuclear arsenal to even half the US total, you would see such alarm in Washington that a new arms race would be all but guaranteed.
China is very keen to avoid an overt arms race, or at least delay it for as long as possible.
China's (again) very sober assessment of nuclear weapons is that once a nation has passed a certain critical mass of weapons number and yield, it's how many warheads you can drop on the 'enemies' heads that counts. Having 10,000 warheads, but precisely zero missiles with sufficient range to hit the enemy where they live has far less deterrence than having 100 warheads that could all hit anywhere on the enemy home territories.
That is why China is focusing its money on nuclear delivery methods rather than more warheads that could not reach the 'enemy'.
The reason China has limit itself to a few hundred warheads is likely based on the limitations of this planet we inhabit.
If China was to fire off its entire nuclear arsental at an enemy, and they fired back the same number of weapons, the combined force of 600-1000 nukes going off at pretty much the same time would almost certainly end life on earth as we know it.
Having and using more nukes than that would merely push the human race from critically endangered to full blown extinct.
Equation
Lieutenant General
"What is there in Asia that you are willing to fight a nuclear war with China... that a nuclear war means the attack on your cities in the United States? The answer is NOTHING."
Ya hear that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan!?
- Status