China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sardaukar20

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Most of the content in that post seems to be written by a "Gordon Duff" from the Veterans Today publication
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


For the rest of the blog, there are plenty of Chinese posters talking about US plans to kill all Chinese people. Now I'm also confident the US wants to destroy China by any and all means necessary but those posts are pure conjecture and wild conspiracy.

Anyway the Beirut explosion involving some nuclear device is pure nonsense. Even in the case of an airstrike attack, the explosion could have been caused by chemicals and triggered by conventional weapons. Why does it need to be nuclear? That wasn't a "mushroom cloud". How is any of this possibly hide-able?
Click to expand...
Yes, too much conjecture and wild conspiracy. I appreciate their support for China. But we and China must be above these kinds of fake sensationalism. Luckily in China, the censorship machine takes down people who spreads false news and hate speech.

Yeah the Beirut explosion is no way a nuclear weapon. There would be an intense thermal flash, fires would be everywhere, scores of people will be scalded, there would be radiation everywhere, and there would be an epidemic of radiation sickness by now.

The Beirut explosion is a classic case of an epic industrial disaster similar to the 2015 Tianjin explosions. If it ever was an attack (which needs stretching one's imagination), the most probable cause is internal sabotage. Raw ammonium nitrate cannot be detonated with a missile strike. It needs to 'cook' until it reaches critical detonation point to go off like that. The fireworks warehouse blaze was the cause, not a missile.
 
T

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Well this is purely theoretical ground. I wouldn't call Russia's "bluff" if I were the US and as things stand, China's ability to make such a bluff simply doesn't measure up to the US or Russia's. Will the US really nuke one city and risk it? Again, there is no practical handbook on this. No nation knows for sure how another will respond to a tactical nuke or a nuke destroying one of their cities. If the US nukes Beijing, will China nuke NY or Washington DC? Beijing's population is many, many times more. So is one city for another truly equal retaliation? You see the problems already.
Click to expand...

Its exactly the same as how nations respond to conventional attacks or military skirmishes. Its fluid and dependent on the political climate of the country, the greater geopolitical environment of the country and long term goal of the country and its leaders.

Case in point, India vs Pakistan air raids last year, which didn't lead to war. Even this year's Suleymani killing and subsequent Iranian missile attacks on US bases, which the US swallowed without starting a war. Or China vs India border conflict which led to deaths of soldiers. Any of these events could have sparked a full-scale war if the leaders or the countries felt that it was large enough hit on their "national pride". Or if the nation or the leader thought that the war will further their or his own agenda. But in each case, they decided that small skirmish is enough tension for their political goals and the public also wisely, agreed.


Same standard applies to any tragic large scale event or attack. If US public can swallow losing 200K people to Coronavirus which they blame on the Chinese, They could also swallow losing a city if they don't have the desire to commit mass suicide. Same for the Chinese or Russians.

Each and every decision regarding war will be decided on cost-benefit analysis on further escalation, equal retaliation, face saving minimal retaliation, alternative type of retaliation and backing down. Each leader will have to weigh all these options even in a case of an attack that caused a 100K in casualties vs an attack that led to killing 10 soldiers. If tensions are high enough, and political goals align, even a single assassination could spark a world war. And if the goals don't align, even nuke attack on a city will be swallowed.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
Its exactly the same as how nations respond to conventional attacks or military skirmishes. Its fluid and dependent on the political climate of the country, the greater geopolitical environment of the country and long term goal of the country and its leaders.

Case in point, India vs Pakistan air raids last year, which didn't lead to war. Even this year's Suleymani killing and subsequent Iranian missile attacks on US bases, which the US swallowed without starting a war. Or China vs India border conflict which led to deaths of soldiers. Any of these events could have sparked a full-scale war if the leaders or the countries felt that it was large enough hit on their "national pride". Or if the nation or the leader thought that the war will further their or his own agenda. But in each case, they decided that small skirmish is enough tension for their political goals and the public also wisely, agreed.


Same standard applies to any tragic large scale event or attack. If US public can swallow losing 200K people to Coronavirus which they blame on the Chinese, They could also swallow losing a city if they don't have the desire to commit mass suicide. Same for the Chinese or Russians.

Each and every decision regarding war will be decided on cost-benefit analysis on further escalation, equal retaliation, face saving minimal retaliation, alternative type of retaliation and backing down. Each leader will have to weigh all these options even in a case of an attack that caused a 100K in casualties vs an attack that led to killing 10 soldiers. If tensions are high enough, and political goals align, even a single assassination could spark a world war. And if the goals don't align, even nuke attack on a city will be swallowed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's hard to say where the lines are and almost impossible for the other to know how far they can push. Nuclear war never was a binary.
 
I

Inst

Captain
Curious, does anyone have inventory lists of DF-21D and DF-26? The latter is rumored at around 120 missiles by Indian media.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Inst said:
Curious, does anyone have inventory lists of DF-21D and DF-26? The latter is rumored at around 120 missiles by Indian media.
Click to expand...

Indian media is definitely wrong. No one talking has real information on actual inventory numbers. Could be 12 could be 1200. Ask the CIA/NSA.
 
I

Inst

Captain
ougoah said:
Indian media is definitely wrong. No one talking has real information on actual inventory numbers. Could be 12 could be 1200. Ask the CIA/NSA.
Click to expand...

DF-26 at 120 missiles is a very good number, however. The DF-26 is between Mach 14 and Mach 18, making it exceptionally hard to intercept. Unlike the DF-21D, which needs salvo fire to overload missile interception, the DF-26 relies on its technology and can be considered "one shot, one kill" provided its guidance goes well.
 
Figaro

Figaro

Senior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Indian media is definitely wrong. No one talking has real information on actual inventory numbers. Could be 12 could be 1200. Ask the CIA/NSA.
Click to expand...
When has the Indian media ever been right? I have no idea why @Inst feels the constant urge to quote Indian media ... they make news networks like Breitbart and forums like 4chan sound like Pulitzer winning content. They're still pumping out stories about how one brave "Jawan" single-handedly threw 16 PLA soldiers to their deaths before being "martyred" at Galwan rofl.
 
I

Inst

Captain
Figaro said:
When has the Indian media ever been right? I have no idea why @Inst feels the constant urge to quote Indian media ... they make news networks like Breitbart and forums like 4chan sound like Pulitzer winning content. They're still pumping out stories about how one brave "Jawan" single-handedly threw 16 PLA soldiers to their deaths before being "martyred" at Galwan rofl.
Click to expand...

What's the incentive of Indian media to downplay the numbers of DF-26? The DF-26 is primarily used for long-ranged attacks, which are superfluous when it comes to the InA as the PLA can plant DF-21-type IRBMs in Tibet and hit most of India's military infrastructure.

Where the DF-26 is most useful in an Indian vs China scenario is as an anti-ship weapon, since the DF-26 is long-ranged, to the point where Tibetan DF-26s can hit Indian ships trying to blockade Chinese shipping an the Straits of Malacca, or for that matter, any Indian ship in or near its home port. And 120 missiles should be sufficient to knock out the entire InN. So why doubt Indian media's credibility here?

===

The DF-21D / DF-26 numbers for the PLARF are extremely important, because for the DF-21D, it's likely interceptable by USN ABM capabilities. That means it becomes crucial for the DF-21D to be launched in vast numbers, aiming to overwhelm USN ABM capabilities. For the DF-26, the high speed means that it's less vulnerable to mid-course interception, but it's still potentially vulnerable to both intercept and jamming capabilities so the numbers are critical in a full-scale engagement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top