China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Untoldpain]

I recommend those interested in Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Policy in general to watch this keynote lecture by Professor John J. Mearsheimer, one of the leading geopolitical thinker of today. Founder of the modern Offensive Realism school of thought.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I have found the his clarity of thought immensely enlightening.

 

[AssassinsMace]

1)Your minimal l nukes can be destroyed by opponents first strike.
2)Some of your missiles can be intercepted
3)Some of your missiles can be malfunctioned.
4)to create nuclear winter or the earth become so radioactive you need to hit alot of areas.
5)if you spent all your nukes and yet the earth is not destroyed and what happened?
6)what if your opponent attack you with low yield nuke destroying your key infrastructure yet not totally environmentally destructive , how would you respond.

The more nukes and more varieties you have will give you more redundancy against failures and more options to respond.

According to Hu , more nukes will definitely affact US elites psychologically. Its a psychological game.

Ever hear of mutually assured destruction? It means either side launches that many nukes to destroy each other, it's the end of the world. It doesn't matter if one side is the only one that does it. A tactical only strike is going to poison the world. You think using nukes is just about destroying the other side's ability to fight? How about the radioactivity swirling around the Earth destroying farmers' ability to grow food as a result? How about the world's water supply being poison with radiation? The US has more nukes right now. If they think they can survive, why don't they use them if it's so simple to attack China who has so few nukes like you've made it? You think China's neighbors who also are the US's most important allies in Asia would like to be next door to nuclear mushrooms. Or maybe they have containment shields so all that fallout doesn't head through the main highway of atmospheric currents that pass through South Korea first and then Japan and then onto to the US and the rest of the world after.

You must be seriously mistaken with what you think I wrote. I never said China should reduce its nuclear stockpile. I said China or any other country doesn't need that many to deter the US because psychologically the same size nuke that hits an American city and a Chinese city does more damage to Americans because how much more important they think their life is worth thus the less likely they will want to sacrifice it.

What's more important is China's ability to deliver nukes. US actions on missile defense exposes how it's not going as planned. They already cancelled their main interceptor program meaning what it takes to work is not viable. Maybe because an expert said it'll take the US to launch eight interceptors at one intercontinental ballistic missile coming in and it'll only have 40% chance at successfully intercepting it. So if China launched fifty ICBMs at the US. it would take at least 400 interceptors to have a slim chance at intercepting all fifty. Do you think the US has hundreds of interceptors stationed in Alaska ready to defend the US? Before the program was cancelled there was only around fifty in Alaska and then they cancelled it.

I remember someone in this forum suggested that the US station ballistic missile defense in Taiwan to intercept Chinese ICBMs headed to the US. The shortest distance from China to the US for an ICBM goes through Russia. Taiwan is not located in that pathway. Those interceptors will be chasing those ICBMs meaning no chance at interception even if ICBM and interceptor launched together at the very same moment. Those interceptors have to be literally in the pathway of the ICBM to have a chance. Any other position is no chance at all. Why do hypersonic missiles scare the US? Because all it takes is one or two maneuvers to ruin an interceptor's day. That's how limited and small the window is for the US to intercept the missile.

Did the US take on North Korea when it produced just one nuke? No. It's only one nuke and back then North Korea didn't have the capability to launch it to the US? So why didn't the US invade or even nuke North Korea? Maybe because the consequences beyond just military losses of even one nuke exploding on South Korea or maybe even Japan are too dire to even dare? I'm sure the US could've easily eliminated one nuke but they didn't. If attacking the enemy is so easy like you think, why didn't the US do it? Because it's not as easy as you think. There are consequences that go beyond anything you're imagining and that's why the US didn't invade or nuke as they taunt North Korea is the most backward and poorest country in the world. But somehow China will be easier...

Aren't you the guy that praises the right-wing of the US? It's hard to believe someone that loves the American right is looking out for the best interests of the Chinese people. Someone recently was confused about your political position by what you were posting? Yeah it would be confusing if one were to believe you're pro-China. You're all doom and gloom for China if China doesn't act the way you want it to. You push for panic and overreaction. There's a common mentality you see from Hong Kongers and Taiwanese and with nationalists in China's neighbors. They have problems with China but they want the US and other countries to deal with China for them. They don't deal with China themselves. They want the US and Western countries to do it. And if that's not happening to their liking, they have to make China out to be an even bigger threat in order to scare the US and others into acting. Wouldn't China having more nukes especially more than the US do that? Take a look at Hong Kongers who want the world's armies to take Hong Kong from China. They don't even think about the consequences of how many Americans or Europeans would die for them just as long as their goals are achieved. Just like not thinking about pushing two superpowers into war...

 

[SinoSoldier]

So I bring up this thought experiment once again: what is the point of actually (note the word) launching a retaliatory strike if your country gets hit by nukes? The entire point of having nuclear deterrence is to deter the enemy from launching in the first place. If this primary function has failed, then why is there a point of actually launching a retaliatory strike that will only lessen humanity's chance of survival?

Sure, China will be destroyed and the US (or any other country) will survive, but destroying the other country won't bring China back. It's a horrible thought experiment but a question nonetheless. The nuclear arsenals of these countries exist purely as a psychological deterrent.

 

[Blitzo]

So I bring up this thought experiment once again: what is the point of actually (note the word) launching a retaliatory strike if your country gets hit by nukes? The entire point of having nuclear deterrence is to deter the enemy from launching in the first place. If this primary function has failed, then why is there a point of actually launching a retaliatory strike that will only lessen humanity's chance of survival?

That's kind of the point though -- one of the motivating rationales behind the idea of deterrence is understanding that nuclear retaliation consists of "if you dare to send me to hell then I'll take at least you with me the best I can".

A nuclear retaliatory attack may not bring the first country is attacked "back" but it will at least be able to cripple if not wipe out the country that attacked you. For the sake of human pettiness or human bitterness or human loyalty or human will, being able to inflict counter punishment would be one of the most important goals to inflict.
If nuclear retaliation also ends up devastating the rest of humanity, well that is unfortunate, but that's how nuclear deterrence works, maybe the rest of the world should've tried to pull the other country back from the brink first.
By that stage, the country which is attacked has nothing left to lose but everything to gain -- and that thing is revenge.



These are not mere psychological deterrents, they are instruments of human will and a reflection of human tribal desire to make sure that if someone tries to impose their will and punishment on you, that you are able to retaliate.

 

[SinoSoldier]

That's kind of the point though -- one of the motivating rationales behind the idea of deterrence is understanding that nuclear retaliation consists of "if you dare to send me to hell then I'll take at least you with me the best I can".

A nuclear retaliatory attack may not bring the first country is attacked "back" but it will at least be able to cripple if not wipe out the country that attacked you. For the sake of human pettiness or human bitterness or human loyalty or human will, being able to inflict counter punishment would be one of the most important goals to inflict.
If nuclear retaliation also ends up devastating the rest of humanity, well that is unfortunate, but that's how nuclear deterrence works, maybe the rest of the world should've tried to pull the other country back from the brink first.
By that stage, the country which is attacked has nothing left to lose but everything to gain -- and that thing is revenge.



These are not mere psychological deterrents, they are instruments of human will and a reflection of human tribal desire to make sure that if someone tries to impose their will and punishment on you, that you are able to retaliate.

Yes, it is the understanding of the promise of retaliation that makes cool heads prevail. Whether or not the defending country actually follows through is another story. All that a country needs to do is to convince other nations that its nuclear deterrent is credible and that its intent to launch a retaliatory strike is unwavering.

In theory, it is entirely possible for a country to load its missiles with dummy warheads, convince its opponents that those warheads are real, and still have a viable deterrent. Obviously in real life things are much more complex than that, but the point is that all that needs to be done is to instill a certain psychological state within your enemy's leadership.

Tribal desire aside, a country's military leadership needs to think rationally rather than emotionally. If a secondary retaliatory strike finishes off whatever that would've been needed to sustain the remnants of humanity, then that nuclear capability in turn hurts the country it is engineered to protect.

 

[caohailiang]

These are not mere psychological deterrents, they are instruments of human will and a reflection of human tribal desire to make sure that if someone tries to impose their will and punishment on you, that you are able to retaliate.

Agree with your point of revenge here but i think it is more than that. As destructive as a nuclear war is, it is conceivable that there will be a post-war world, where countries will try to recover and re-establish themselves. So it would be reasonable to use nuclear weapon to weaken your adversaries as much as possible during the war, otherwise you will be in a very disadvantageous position competing with them post-war.

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, it is the understanding of the promise of retaliation that makes cool heads prevail. Whether or not the defending country actually follows through is another story. All that a country needs to do is to convince other nations that its nuclear deterrent is credible and that its intent to launch a retaliatory strike is unwavering.

In theory, it is entirely possible for a country to load its missiles with dummy warheads, convince its opponents that those warheads are real, and still have a viable deterrent. Obviously in real life things are much more complex than that, but the point is that all that needs to be done is to instill a certain psychological state within your enemy's leadership.

Tribal desire aside, a country's military leadership needs to think rationally rather than emotionally. If a secondary retaliatory strike finishes off whatever that would've been needed to sustain the remnants of humanity, then that nuclear capability in turn hurts the country it is engineered to protect.

Your logic only works if the country that's been attacked has anything left to lose if they respond with nuclear retaliation.

If the country that's been attacked has already lost its major population centers and economic centers and military capabilities due to an initial nuclear attack, while the country that struck first has suffered no similar losses of its own, then it goes without saying that the country which has been attacked should seek to enact retaliatory nuclear strikes for the purpose of revenge.



I don't think anyone doubts if in the cold war, the USSR or the US had attacked the other first with nuclear weapons, that the other wouldn't retaliate.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Your logic only works if the country that's been attacked has anything left to lose if they respond with nuclear retaliation.

If the country that's been attacked has already lost its major population centers and economic centers and military capabilities due to an initial nuclear attack, while the country that struck first has suffered no similar losses of its own, then it goes without saying that the country which has been attacked should seek to enact retaliatory nuclear strikes for the purpose of revenge.



I don't think anyone doubts if in the cold war, the USSR or the US had attacked the other first with nuclear weapons, that the other wouldn't retaliate.

Ok, but then what is the purpose of revenge? It is completely expected that citizens and perhaps the individual leaders of the besieged country wants to exact the same kind of treatment it was dealt, but as a military establishment deciding the country's future, what is the end benefit of destroying your attacker?

There is only one scenario in which case your logic would apply: when Country A attacks a portion of Country B. In that case, Country B can launch a retaliatory attack to deter further strikes on its territory. But in a scenario in which Country B is completely destroyed, is there a logical necessity to retaliate?

 

[Untoldpain]

Ok, but then what is the purpose of revenge? It is completely expected that citizens and perhaps the individual leaders of the besieged country wants to exact the same kind of treatment it was dealt, but as a military establishment deciding the country's future, what is the end benefit of destroying your attacker?

There is only one scenario in which case your logic would apply: when Country A attacks a portion of Country B. In that case, Country B can launch a retaliatory attack to deter further strikes on its territory. But in a scenario in which Country B is completely destroyed, is there a logical necessity to retaliate?

Retaliation is guaranteed. During a Nuclear exchange, large portion of the First Strike target would be Counterforce in nature. One shouldn't forget that during the cold war, a overwhelming majority of warheads are sighted against enemy nuclear force with only a minority targeting enemy population centers.

Once a massed incoming strike is detected via OTH or space based assets, the country on the receiving end are in a "use it or lose it" situation. For modern solid fueled missiles, this would likely means retaliation strike would be launched before First Strike will even arrives.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Ok, but then what is the purpose of revenge? It is completely expected that citizens and perhaps the individual leaders of the besieged country wants to exact the same kind of treatment it was dealt, but as a military establishment deciding the country's future, what is the end benefit of destroying your attacker?

There is only one scenario in which case your logic would apply: when Country A attacks a portion of Country B. In that case, Country B can launch a retaliatory attack to deter further strikes on its territory. But in a scenario in which Country B is completely destroyed, is there a logical necessity to retaliate?

Your logic is crazy; do you even understand the concept of "revenge"? It doesn't mean to do something to deter further things from done to you. Think like an actual human being, not like a computer programmed to calculate benefit. Human beings want revenge when they are wronged. If you came into your house and saw that someone had just stabbed your wife and children to death and is now standing there at your mercy because you happen to have a loaded gun, you'd shoot him, probably several times starting from the legs up. At least I would. You wouldn't think, "Hmmm, killing him won't bring back my family, but this bullet cost me money and an extra body means even more mess to clean up. Best to let him go since there's no benefit from killing him. Hey, my son's dead now so let's ask him if he wants to be adopted. I could use an adult son who can help clean up this mess..."