China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Hendrik_2000]

He is saying the same thing you are. That China is being ambiguous. He doesn't state with any strength WHY. Some generic statement about how hostile the US is and that's why they are being ambiguous. That's not in any way a serious explanation.

So I'm asking you, since you seem to know for a fact the reason for this strategic ambiguity is because China has so many more warheads than the Western world thinks, I am asking you what the point of this is?

Why? Do you know what why means? For what cause? The reason? On what account? The motive? Are there any more synonyms I can possibly use to get you to understand the simplicity of the initial question.

If China supposedly has 6,000 warheads, what is the point of pretending to have a couple hundred? Don't just say *garble garble* strategic ambiguity.

I guess I am talking to the wall and YOU ARE NOT CHINESE Read Sun Tzu
Inspirational Sun Tzu Quotes about Power and Life
1. “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.” – Sun Tzu

2. “Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?” – Sun Tzu

3. “If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.” – Sun Tzu

4. “Keep your friends close, your enemies even closer.” – Sun Tzu

5. “Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.” – Sun Tzu

6. “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” – Sun Tzu

7. “Let your plans be dark and as impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.” – Sun Tzu

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

8. “If you are far from the enemy, make him believe you are near.” – Sun Tzu

 

[sinophilia]

Your response is Sun Tzu quotes. Alright then.

 

[totenchan]

I guess I am talking to the wall and YOU ARE NOT CHINESE Read Sun Tzu
Inspirational Sun Tzu Quotes about Power and Life
1. “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.” – Sun Tzu

2. “Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?” – Sun Tzu

3. “If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.” – Sun Tzu

4. “Keep your friends close, your enemies even closer.” – Sun Tzu

5. “Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.” – Sun Tzu

6. “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” – Sun Tzu

7. “Let your plans be dark and as impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.” – Sun Tzu

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

8. “If you are far from the enemy, make him believe you are near.” – Sun Tzu

oh my god
thank god sun tzu died before nuclear weapons existed

 

[ougoah]

lol official policy for ambiguity obviously works then. Can you imagine how annoyed the actual policy makers over at the US have and are experiencing in estimating Chinese warheads?

Pu production and refinement can be done without any accurate estimates. There are no investigators looking at Chinese plants and equipment. There is literally nothing limiting China from actually already having a 1000 warhead stockpile, not that such a count is necessary or not. I'm not going to get into that but will question why it is some here think having a low stockpile is a good thing. 300 warheads is nothing. Going from 300 to 1000 isn't going to make a atom sized dent in China's bank balance. In fact going Russian or American crazy with >5000 warhead counts of the KT to MT range is also not going to even slightly dent China's bank balance. Sorry but I disagree with Chan's position on this. Remaining with a relatively low stockpile like UK or France is not wise for China.

UK and France don't need any nukes. If Russia or even China nuke western Europe, the US will respond for them even if they have zero nukes. North Korea isn't going to nuke Europe and even if Iran develop and stockpile, they will have no reason to. So why should China a nation constantly antagonised and threatened NOT stockpile at the very least 1000 MT range warheads and more smaller MaRV and MIRV warheads along with some tactical yield sizes as well. It's literally less than pocket change and basically guarantees no one will ever try to f with you.

It's unlikely that China's built up such a massive stockpile of SRBM, MRBM, IRBM, ICBM, SLBM, nuke capable cruise missiles, free fall bombs, and a vast network of missile tunnels, just to only have 300 warheads. PLA has over a thousand ballistic missiles of varying ranges and often described by those military analysts as "thousands" just to keep 300 nuclear warheads? Sure most are likely to take conventional warheads during expected conflicts but 300 nuclear is just too small a number to even be realistic. Six 094 with twelve JL-2 each capable of different MIRV/MaRV depending of warhead yield. That's already a fair chunk of the 300. I suppose the decades carving out mountain ranges are a distraction and they're really all empty.

 

[ougoah]

If China is attacked with a first strike and only has 300 warheads to throw at the US, Canada, Australia, and western Europe, it's finished. It won't be successful. If North Korea did not have China backing its security, the US would absolutely have attacked! They don't care what happens to South Korea. It's the threat of China retaliating that's kept the Americans away from another Korean war and NOT Kim's handful of KT yield bombs sitting on glorified V2s. Get real guys.

To have any protection from American first strike, China needs to be able to deliver hundreds of warheads to the US alone and guarantee absolute annihilation of western Europe as well. Any less, a hawkish US government and military can and probably will try a first strike. Why do you think Russia insists on having over 5000 warheads? Even throughout its toughest economic moments?? Are the Russians just dumber than internet armchair generals? lol you guys flatter yourselves.

The whole idea of "secondary" MAD option isn't insurance enough for China and thank God it isn't. That means using your limited stockpile to attack a warhead horder like Russia in hopes of triggering "dead hand" procedures. But there are just too many precarious assumptions involved to base your existence on these assumptions. Therefore China must have WAY more than 300 warheads if it has a government run by people with a quarter of a functioning brain.

To save some pocket change by skimping out on such good value life insurance is beyond retarded. I don't even know how some people here can even entertain the idea of low stockpile working FOR China rather than what it is, flirting with disaster. China needs at least 1000 warheads for minimum deterrence. Keeping ambiguous is purposeful strategy. These two are separate topics though even if some here like to conflate actuality with strategy. Ambiguity in reporting is not equal to indications of actual stockpile.

 

[Nobonita Barua]

If China is attacked with a first strike and only has 300 warheads to throw at the US, Canada, Australia, and western Europe, it's finished. It won't be successful. If North Korea did not have China backing its security, the US would absolutely have attacked! They don't care what happens to South Korea. It's the threat of China retaliating that's kept the Americans away from another Korean war and NOT Kim's handful of KT yield bombs sitting on glorified V2s. Get real guys.

Sorry, but i have got to disagree with that bit.

Kim's "handful of KT yield" bombs sitting on glorified V2s are enough to vaporize NYC or a few shiny cities US have got, and US hasn't got that many shiny cities.
If you don't believe me, i can practically demonstrate that.

Of course i agree with the fact that they don't care about South Koreans.

The fact that deters them, is we don't care about them either.

Let's be honest, that country & it's people is bats--t scared of some jihadi nukes which can be fitted in container taking them out for a ride.
Kim's "handful of KT yeild bombs" is a few more than a container fitted nuke, i am pretty sire about that.

 

[totenchan]

If China is attacked with a first strike and only has 300 warheads to throw at the US, Canada, Australia, and western Europe, it's finished. It won't be successful. If North Korea did not have China backing its security, the US would absolutely have attacked! They don't care what happens to South Korea. It's the threat of China retaliating that's kept the Americans away from another Korean war and NOT Kim's handful of KT yield bombs sitting on glorified V2s. Get real guys.

To have any protection from American first strike, China needs to be able to deliver hundreds of warheads to the US alone and guarantee absolute annihilation of western Europe as well. Any less, a hawkish US government and military can and probably will try a first strike. Why do you think Russia insists on having over 5000 warheads? Even throughout its toughest economic moments?? Are the Russians just dumber than internet armchair generals? lol you guys flatter yourselves.

The whole idea of "secondary" MAD option isn't insurance enough for China and thank God it isn't. That means using your limited stockpile to attack a warhead horder like Russia in hopes of triggering "dead hand" procedures. But there are just too many precarious assumptions involved to base your existence on these assumptions. Therefore China has WAY more than 300 warheads if it has a government run by people with a quarter of a functioning brain.

What? You realize that nuclear weapons are far stronger then conventional weapons? Do you think any US leadership would tolerate the loss of a hundred cities? Why in the world would China need to annihilate western Europe as well? Did western Europe nuke them? Russia retains so many nuclear warheads because they, like the US, have a counter-force strategy, where they need to target US nuclear infrastructure as well as cities, China has sworn off the counter-force strategy by declaring a no-first use policy. You are certainly dumber then Chinese strategic planners, when you apparently don't notice this. The "secondary MAD" strategy you are referring to is known as a "survivable second strike" by people who know what they are talking about, and it is certainly enough for China, considering the US has never tried anything resembling nuclear blackmail. Those "precarious assumptions" you refer to don't exist, the no first use policy is based on rock solid strategic reasoning that you would understand if you read anything about it, including the article Hendrik posted. China probably does not have "WAY more than 300 warheads" because it does not NEED a massive stockpile of weapons because Chinese strategic planners are not retarded.

 

[ougoah]

Sorry, but i have got to disagree with that bit.

Kim's "handful of KT yield" bombs sitting on glorified V2s are enough to vaporize NYC or a few shiny cities US have got, and US hasn't got that many shiny cities.
If you don't believe me, i can practically demonstrate that.

Of course i agree with the fact that they don't care about South Koreans.

The fact that deters them, is we don't care about them either.

Let's be honest, that country & it's people is bats--t scared of some jihadi nukes which can be fitted in container taking them out for a ride.
Kim's "handful of KT yeild bombs" is a few more than a container fitted nuke, i am pretty sire about that.

Those missiles and warheads can easily be intercepted. The Americans could intercept Soviet missiles and had very impressive successful programs in ABM/BMD. When it comes to China is it acceptable that China only takes out a couple of major US cities while China itself gets utterly annihilated?

The BMD systems are mostly good against smaller and less sophisticated nuclear arsenals. Exactly like North Korea's. The aim is to have both quality and quantity to negate even the best BMD rolled out in numbers like the US has. So you need very sophisticated missiles and warheads and thousands of them.

 

[totenchan]

Those missiles and warheads can easily be intercepted. The Americans could intercept Soviet missiles and had very impressive successful programs in ABM/BMD. When it comes to China is it acceptable that China only takes out a couple of major US cities while China itself gets utterly annihilated?

The BMD systems are mostly good against smaller and less sophisticated nuclear arsenals. Exactly like North Korea's. The aim is to have both quality and quantity to negate even the best BMD rolled out in numbers like the US has. So you need very sophisticated missiles and warheads and thousands of them.

Current American missile interception is not able to deal with a Chinese retaliatory strike. Chinese missiles are MIRV'ed and no American missile system is anything resembling effective against MIRVs or even the most basic of decoys. This being said, if American developments in missile defense do advance beyond the second-rate systems and mostly ineffective they currently have, it WOULD justify an increase in the Chinese warhead arsenal. Until this happens, however, China does not need more warheads then they currently have.

 

[Nobonita Barua]

Those missiles and warheads can easily be intercepted. The Americans could intercept Soviet missiles and had very impressive successful programs in ABM/BMD. When it comes to China is it acceptable that China only takes out a couple of major US cities while China itself gets utterly annihilated?

The BMD systems are mostly good against smaller and less sophisticated nuclear arsenals. Exactly like North Korea's. The aim is to have both quality and quantity to negate even the best BMD rolled out in numbers like the US has. So you need very sophisticated missiles and warheads and thousands of them.

Sure.

I am willing to see American's confidence in their BMD against live "small" nukes.


And there is only one way to do it.

By the way, i ain't talking about China. I am more in complete favour of China at least tripling it's arsenal, upto 1500 warheads.

I simply don't give into US bulls--t of "interception". Sure "mathematically" some interception is a possibility.
However, once the firing starts, it isn't about possibility of interception any more. It's about "what if they get through".
Do you think our "terrorized" people can with that?