China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[bajingan]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

it is an exciting read the articles above, from the look of it seems that China does not realize the importance of having a credible nuclear deterrence, this made me remember 2008 russia georgia war, in that brief conflict russia smacked georgia around (a close us ally) and the us did nothing to interfere, i mean why is us infantry divisions in germany are not figthing the russian airborne troops in georgia?, i remember one senior us official saying something like this "we have been working hard for 50 years to avoid confrontation with russia, and we are not going to start confrontation with them now" why did they think like this? i think it got something to do with russia massive nuclear forces, now lets imagine this situation in south China sea, for example if phillipine or vietnam decided to sent troops to spratyl island and China decided to interfere militarily by sending its navy, i bet the us will interfere, i bet the 7th fleet will be there in no time, i bet japan will be involved as well (logistically) in fact i am pretty sure everybody is going to gang up on China, why?? because the us does not fear China puny nuclear forces, China does not have a credible nuclear deterrence that will ensure MAD, the us will think that China will not dare to escalate it to nuclear war, the us will be tempted to use its thousands of ICBM to neutralize China small nuclear forces, and with good reasons, without a credible SSBN forces, a determined first strike will potentially wiped out all Chinese ground nuclear forces, having a small nuclear deterrence when you live in tough neighbourhood is not a great idea, it is a strategic flaw that will compromise China security for decades to come, China does not need to have an arsenal as big as russia's but she need to have an arsenal that match her size and her power, its like having a revolver when everybody near you has AK-47 does not make sense.

 

[antiterror13]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

it is an exciting read the articles above, from the look of it seems that China does not realize the importance of having a credible nuclear deterrence, this made me remember 2008 russia georgia war, in that brief conflict russia smacked georgia around (a close us ally) and the us did nothing to interfere, i mean why is us infantry divisions in germany are not figthing the russian airborne troops in georgia?, i remember one senior us official saying something like this "we have been working hard for 50 years to avoid confrontation with russia, and we are not going to start confrontation with them now" why did they think like this? i think it got something to do with russia massive nuclear forces, now lets imagine this situation in south China sea, for example if phillipine or vietnam decided to sent troops to spratyl island and China decided to interfere militarily by sending its navy, i bet the us will interfere, i bet the 7th fleet will be there in no time, i bet japan will be involved as well (logistically) in fact i am pretty sure everybody is going to gang up on China, why?? because the us does not fear China puny nuclear forces, China does not have a credible nuclear deterrence that will ensure MAD, the us will think that China will not dare to escalate it to nuclear war, the us will be tempted to use its thousands of ICBM to neutralize China small nuclear forces, and with good reasons, without a credible SSBN forces, a determined first strike will potentially wiped out all Chinese ground nuclear forces, having a small nuclear deterrence when you live in tough neighbourhood is not a great idea, it is a strategic flaw that will compromise China security for decades to come, China does not need to have an arsenal as big as russia's but she need to have an arsenal that match her size and her power, its like having a revolver when everybody near you has AK-47 does not make sense.

Do you really believe Chinese military leaders that stupid and you are smarter than them ?

btw .. are you Indonesian ? .... your username sounds funny

 

[bajingan]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

Do you really believe Chinese military leaders that stupid and you are smarter than them ?

btw .. are you Indonesian ? .... your username sounds funny

No im not indonesian, what makes you think i am? yea of course they are leaps and bounds smarter than me, if they are not they wouldn't be military leaders at the first place wouldn't they? now do you have any intelligent insights or contributions to offer in regards of the topic to enlighten my lack of knowledge?

 

[Lezt]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

it is an exciting read the articles above, from the look of it seems that China does not realize the importance of having a credible nuclear deterrence, this made me remember 2008 russia georgia war, in that brief conflict russia smacked georgia around (a close us ally) and the us did nothing to interfere, i mean why is us infantry divisions in germany are not figthing the russian airborne troops in georgia?, i remember one senior us official saying something like this "we have been working hard for 50 years to avoid confrontation with russia, and we are not going to start confrontation with them now" why did they think like this? i think it got something to do with russia massive nuclear forces, now lets imagine this situation in south China sea, for example if phillipine or vietnam decided to sent troops to spratyl island and China decided to interfere militarily by sending its navy, i bet the us will interfere, i bet the 7th fleet will be there in no time, i bet japan will be involved as well (logistically) in fact i am pretty sure everybody is going to gang up on China, why?? because the us does not fear China puny nuclear forces, China does not have a credible nuclear deterrence that will ensure MAD, the us will think that China will not dare to escalate it to nuclear war, the us will be tempted to use its thousands of ICBM to neutralize China small nuclear forces, and with good reasons, without a credible SSBN forces, a determined first strike will potentially wiped out all Chinese ground nuclear forces, having a small nuclear deterrence when you live in tough neighbourhood is not a great idea, it is a strategic flaw that will compromise China security for decades to come, China does not need to have an arsenal as big as russia's but she need to have an arsenal that match her size and her power, its like having a revolver when everybody near you has AK-47 does not make sense.

That is a very simplistic understanding of nuclear deterrent. For starters, destroying the enemy nuke on the ground simultaneously is a very hard thing to accomplish. As shown in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nukes have very poor penetration ability by their detonation - some of the reinforced concrete structure of regular buildings survived.

This suggest that nuclear detonation will not likely destroy hardened missile silos if they do not hit it directly (and penetrate it with its terminal kinetic energy) and especially if an air burst.

If China have thousands of dummy silos and launch sites, how likely is that the real sites are hit and if the real sites are hit, that they will be destroyed?

The second thing is, how many nuclear warhead delivered to lets say the US or Russia is credible? Can the USA or Russia lose 15 of their largest social/cultural/industrial/agricultural/economical centres? How many warhead needs to be hit the USA/Russia before the residual radiation make the country uninhabitable or incapable of functioning - 50 hits? How many ICBM can the USA/Russia take out when their flight time is less than 7 minutes?

If we assume that the 50% of the ICBM launched against the USA/Russia can be taken out, and that we need 50 hits on the country to totally screw that country, then China only need to be able to launch 100 warheads. Lets assume that the USA/Russia first strike can take out 2/3rd of the Chinese arsenal, then it means that China needs 300 warheads in ready launch to be credible or 600 warheads if China wish to be credible against both the USA and Russia at the same time. 300 warhead is also what China willingly publish just so it remains a credible threat.

Thirdly, there is only a limited amount of warheads any sane person will contemplate launching. The fallout and radiation is a global effect, launching too much warhead is basically suicide. Maybe lets say 300 is the limit the life on earth can recover from? It means, the USA/Russia will not be able to take out all Chinese ICBM with a primary strike which will not also kill themselves.

 

[Red___Sword]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

My understaning of nuclear deterrence levels is this:

1. Minimum deterrence. Whatever punch you took (even oblivion), your last minute retaliation can effectively take out your enemy's status quo of being an unchallengable superpower. The first striker may or may not stay to be in a relatively good shape to continually to live on, but not as a superpower for sure. Which a superpower country would not like to see, thus deter the first strike from happening. (Say, one or two major metropolis lost)

2. Limited deterrence. Whatever punch you took (even oblivion), your last minute retaliation can effectively make your enemy degenerating into a situation of "nobody" (vs. "somebody") among the new world order. What's happen next, would be interesting - not only the superpower enemy would not like to see this, but also fear and hate every bit of the scenario, so that effectively, the superpower would not hasitate to shoot its ICBMs to ALL THE other world powerhouses ON PRINCIPLE, renders everybody into "nobody" situation. The serials consequences renders the first striker gains nothing at all, thus effectively deters first strike from ever happening.

3. Mutual Authenticated Destruction. I prefer the word "authenticated" than "assured" - authenticated leaves no room for low lifes called politicians and lobbists (and "military experts" for that matters) to RAPE the plain truth from their domestic public awareness - Not only nothing can be gained by what ever words-playing of "we only do 'tactical nuke strikes', this is not going to trigger world destruction", but also simple and non-expert-explanatory that whole world, including your own country, shall be damned, as long as you consider first strike (strategical or tactical) as an option. No string attached, no need to wait for a third party to leverage the effect, just one-on-one, the mutual destruction is authenticated to be assured.


I believe, we are never going to anywhere, if we "measure the dick size", on nuclear deterrence; but need to measure "how far you can go", to absorb enemy's retaliation.

You wanna live in "***an dream" life style, then don't mess another crediable nuclear power country, enven you can oblivion him after, you shall loos that cherish "***an dream" life style now. - If not worth it, don't first strike.

Deterrence is all about deter the other guys' possible first strike, it do not talk about quench of the pleasure of revenge after that. A deterrent failed outright once there is first strike took place, that shaters the very current existing world order which a "deterrent" is trying to protect. The current world order is only that good, that you may live the consequences (for say, you have a bigger dick size), but you rather wish to prevent from happening, so everybody erect this nothing-more-than-a-moral-understanding called deterrence, to prevent it from ever happening... hopfully.

 

[antiterror13]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

My understaning of nuclear deterrence levels is this:

1. Minimum deterrence. Whatever punch you took (even oblivion), your last minute retaliation can effectively take out your enemy's status quo of being an unchallengable superpower. The first striker may or may not stay to be in a relatively good shape to continually to live on, but not as a superpower for sure. Which a superpower country would not like to see, thus deter the first strike from happening. (Say, one or two major metropolis lost)

2. Limited deterrence. Whatever punch you took (even oblivion), your last minute retaliation can effectively make your enemy degenerating into a situation of "nobody" (vs. "somebody") among the new world order. What's happen next, would be interesting - not only the superpower enemy would not like to see this, but also fear and hate every bit of the scenario, so that effectively, the superpower would not hasitate to shoot its ICBMs to ALL THE other world powerhouses ON PRINCIPLE, renders everybody into "nobody" situation. The serials consequences renders the first striker gains nothing at all, thus effectively deters first strike from ever happening.

3. Mutual Authenticated Destruction. I prefer the word "authenticated" than "assured" - authenticated leaves no room for low lifes called politicians and lobbists (and "military experts" for that matters) to RAPE the plain truth from their domestic public awareness - Not only nothing can be gained by what ever words-playing of "we only do 'tactical nuke strikes', this is not going to trigger world destruction", but also simple and non-expert-explanatory that whole world, including your own country, shall be damned, as long as you consider first strike (strategical or tactical) as an option. No string attached, no need to wait for a third party to leverage the effect, just one-on-one, the mutual destruction is authenticated to be assured.


I believe, we are never going to anywhere, if we "measure the dick size", on nuclear deterrence; but need to measure "how far you can go", to absorb enemy's retaliation.

You wanna live in "***an dream" life style, then don't mess another crediable nuclear power country, enven you can oblivion him after, you shall loos that cherish "***an dream" life style now. - If not worth it, don't first strike.

Deterrence is all about deter the other guys' possible first strike, it do not talk about quench of the pleasure of revenge after that. A deterrent failed outright once there is first strike took place, that shaters the very current existing world order which a "deterrent" is trying to protect. The current world order is only that good, that you may live the consequences (for say, you have a bigger dick size), but you rather wish to prevent from happening, so everybody erect this nothing-more-than-a-moral-understanding called deterrence, to prevent it from ever happening... hopfully.

Very good explanations. China moved to "Limited deterrence" from "Minimum deterrence" a while ago, perhaps in mid or early 2000s

 

[victtodd]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

Deterrence is all about deter the other guys' possible first strike, it do not talk about quench of the pleasure of revenge after that. A deterrent failed outright once there is first strike took place, that shaters the very current existing world order which a "deterrent" is trying to protect. The current world order is only that good, that you may live the consequences (for say, you have a bigger dick size), but you rather wish to prevent from happening, so everybody erect this nothing-more-than-a-moral-understanding called deterrence, to prevent it from ever happening... hopfully.

I just want to say the word "erect" is really a good pun.

 

[Geographer]

Re: Does China need more Nuclear Weapons ?

bajingan, good points but PLEASE USE PARAGRAPHS! Your whole post is one long run-on sentence.

i bet the us will interfere, i bet the 7th fleet will be there in no time, i bet japan will be involved as well (logistically) in fact i am pretty sure everybody is going to gang up on China, why?? because the us does not fear China puny nuclear forces, China does not have a credible nuclear deterrence that will ensure MAD, the us will think that China will not dare to escalate it to nuclear war,

That's true to some extent but there were political and military reasons too. It was pretty clear from the beginning, despite the post-war Georgian spin, that Georgia started the war, invaded South Ossetia on the open day of the 2008 Summer Olympics while Putin was in Beijing. I remember it well. Second, Russia responded rapidly and overwhelmingly. It was a huge mismatch in forces and the war was over in weeks, too soon for the U.S. to get involved. More importantly, it the battle was primarily fought on land where the American advantage is much lower than in the air or at sea.

That is why if a war started in the South China Sea, the U.S. would not hesitate to send in the carrier battle groups. In the last 30 years, the U.S. has proved willing to use air and sea power at the drop of a hat, but reluctant to commit ground forces. See Kosovo 1999 and Libya 2011. China has no credible sea or air-based deterrent. It could take on all the Spratly Island claimants, but not the USN. The open ocean is where superior air and naval power thrive. Only on the ground could China tangle with the U.S. military and hope to achieve its objectives.

Nevertheless, you are correct to see the importance of nuclear weapons in deterring the U.S. The long history and deeply embedded fear of Russian nuclear weapons had given American military planners pause when it comes to tangling with Russia. China's only very recent emergence as a military power (and I mean in the last five years) means that Americans still to do fear China or its deterrent. China in the very recent past could easily be pushed around on military affairs outside its borders. That mentality is still prevalent to some extent in U.S. strategic circles, I believe.

Other than building up its nuclear arsenal, China could delay American intervention by going all-out in a future conflict. If something blew up in the South China Sea, China would need to show it was serious and committed to winning by committing a huge and disproportionate number of forces to the war. That would raise the stakes for any American intervention. Tepid, supposedly proportional Chinese military responses invite foreign intervention.

 

[kroko]

questions about chinese nuclear defence

i have 2 questions about this topic:

first, what BMEW (ballistic missile early warning) does china have regarding the US ?

second, is it true that china, unlike the USA and russia, doesnt keep its nuclear forces at alert level, and has its nuclear warheads separated and in bases far away from the missiles?

 

[CottageLV]

Re: questions about chinese nuclear defence

i have 2 questions about this topic:

first, what BMEW (ballistic missile early warning) does china have regarding the US ?

second, is it true that china, unlike the USA and russia, doesnt keep its nuclear forces at alert level, and has its nuclear warheads separated and in bases far away from the missiles?

Those huge vast anti-ballistic missile networks probably don't exist in China. Only medium range networks exist around large cities and strategic areas. Those are too expensive and too complicated for China during the cold war. As soon as China grew rich and gained technological abilities, the Cold war was already "Cold" (Sino-American Honeymoon and Sino-Soviet Rapproachment).

These days it is just useless to build it. Those have the ability to destroy China wouldn't be insane enough to do it, such as Russia and US. Those that want to do it or thinking of doing it for whatever reasons, perhaps India and ASEAN countries, don't have the ability to do it.