China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[delft]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

About strategic nuclear weapons alone:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Of course the way these numbers are calculated is Byzantine and it is not entered into by the Washington Post.
Can one of our members explain how that works?

 

[kwaigonegin]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

My personal opinion:

China should aim for 3500-5000 nuclear warheads, since 200 warheads is less than UK/France, which have a territorial size and population equal to a medium sized Chinese province.

For example, if UK/France were scaled up to the population of China, they would have 7,000 nuclear warheads each, which is comparable to US (8,000) and Russia (10,000) if you compare the numbers.

So a 3500-5000 nuclear warheads is not a far fetched unreasonable number.

I don't understand your logic.. how or why should a country's population correspond to the number of nuclear warheads it possesses? If that's the case then Indonesia and India should have hundreds if not thousands of nuclear warheads also.

 

[solarz]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

I don't understand your logic.. how or why should a country's population correspond to the number of nuclear warheads it possesses? If that's the case then Indonesia and India should have hundreds if not thousands of nuclear warheads also.

Indeed. If anything, the number of nuclear weapons you keep should be scaled with regard to your enemy's size and population.

I don't understand people who advocate *more* nuclear weapons in the world. Do you enjoy nuclear winters or what? There is absolutely no need to keep more nuclear weapons than the minimum required for effective deterrence.

 

[bladerunner]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

Indeed. If anything, the number of nuclear weapons you keep should be scaled with regard to your enemy's size and population.

I don't understand people who advocate *more* nuclear weapons in the world. Do you enjoy nuclear winters or what? There is absolutely no need to keep more nuclear weapons than the minimum required for effective deterrence.

Effective deterrence = effective counterstrike.Has China reached that point yet?

 

[antiterror13]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

I don't understand your logic.. how or why should a country's population correspond to the number of nuclear warheads it possesses? If that's the case then Indonesia and India should have hundreds if not thousands of nuclear warheads also.

But Indonesia, India are not major power .... only poor third rate countries

 

[antiterror13]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

Effective deterrence = effective counterstrike.Has China reached that point yet?

Against the USA, I don't think China has ... no country has

 

[bladerunner]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

Against the USA, I don't think China has ... no country has

India only has to worry about Pakistan and vice versa

whereas China, its her against the rest, so therefore she has a long way to go.

 

[Igor]

»Ø¸´: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

Effective deterrence = effective counterstrike.Has China reached that point yet?

If it means at least one radioactive megaton on every major American city, then yes, it has. Keep in mind Over ~45% of chinese popullation (~600 million) do not reside in cities or towns. US is much more urbanized, thus more vulnerable.

Against the USA, I don't think China has ... no country has

Russia could saturate the entire world even after suffering a first strike. It's mobile launchers are not kept anywhere near potential targets and are always on the move. China employs a similar strategy + the vast underground storage we learned about in 2008. Both China and russia employ significant ballistic submarines forces also, enough to cripple. They won't be lost in a first strike.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

I think in the end this is a non winning argument simply because there are no winners. In the event of a total nuclear war it doesn't matter if 10% or 50% of a particular country's population survives the initial first strike... ultimately the entire world will suffer unimaginable horror and for many of those remaining survivors I think they would wish an earlier death.
There will be nuclear winter for decades and most animal and plant life will be decimated. Global economy will cease to exist, entire societies will crumple and revert to anarchy and chaos and remaining humans not expose to radiation will probably resort to cannibalism etc. Personally I think I would want to be the initial casualties of a total nuclear war than to wake up in some post apocalyptic hell with my family assuming we all are even unlucky enough to survive those initial MIRV blasts.

 

[solarz]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

I think in the end this is a non winning argument simply because there are no winners. In the event of a total nuclear war it doesn't matter if 10% or 50% of a particular country's population survives the initial first strike... ultimately the entire world will suffer unimaginable horror and for many of those remaining survivors I think they would wish an earlier death.
There will be nuclear winter for decades and most animal and plant life will be decimated. Global economy will cease to exist, entire societies will crumple and revert to anarchy and chaos and remaining humans not expose to radiation will probably resort to cannibalism etc. Personally I think I would want to be the initial casualties of a total nuclear war than to wake up in some post apocalyptic hell with my family assuming we all are even unlucky enough to survive those initial MIRV blasts.

In other words, Fallout!