China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

quantumlight

Junior Member
Registered Member
China is not going to reach 1,000 warheads overnight. It would be speedy progress if China can deploy 1,000 warheads before it reaches GDP parity with the U.S. Having a more substantial nuclear arsenal doesn't mean complete parity with the U.S. Right now according to open source estimations U.S have at least 5 times deployed warheads and 20x total warheads compared to China. That's the extent of the American advantage. Does the U.S. have the political will to maintain 5x deployed and 20x total numbers of warheads with an economic peer? I doubt even the U.S. military-industry complex is that crazy. Indeed, historically once the Soviet Union overtook the U.S., U.S. never tried to maintain the initial advantage it held over the Soviet Union. So your idea of a nuclear arms race is without historical evidence.

Look at this Wikipedia graph
View attachment 66034

The 'racing' is almost entirely done by the Soviet Union.

For arms control treaty, China basically has two options, either have a order-of-magnitude smaller arsenal and no arms control treaty or have roughly comparable arsenal and an arms control treaty. The latter is preferable.

The idea that the Chinese government needs to spend 'all their money' on a nuclear arms race is just absurd. The U.S. spent $35 billion on nuclear weapons in 2019, Russia spent less than $10 billion. China can easily afford spending $15-20 billion each year on its nuclear arsenal.
Any arms control treaty sign with US is less than worthless, look at the treaties US signed with Natives, when hegemony is at stake US never let a little paperwork get in the way. Or the pullout of START, or the reversal of Iran deal.

The treaty would give China a False sense of security while allowing the cheating party the additional unfair advantage of being able to build out while China sits idly by which is worse than no treaty since at least then China wouldnt be naively double conned....

When US pulled out of START they showed their hand, they had already broken the treaty for many years ahead of time, then of course like always turned around and accused the victim of cheating (US enjoys petrodollar unfair advantage but calls China the currency manipulator) and used false allegations against Russia as pretext to come out and killed the Start treaty when in fact the US had always themselves been cheating...
 

totenchan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Any attempt would be secret back channel stuff not privy to the likes of CNN, Fox, or Epoch Times

All one can surmise is there are a lot of unknown unknowns

But 300 is not enough, period. full stop

FWIW I dont actually believe China only has 300 and I think the US gov doesnt believe that either
300 not being enough is not for you to decide, especially with no threat to the survivable deterrent. I for one think that it is enough, and do believe the Chinese arms control envoy when he says China's stockpile is in the range of France and the UK's.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
300 not being enough is not for you to decide, especially with no threat to the survivable deterrent. I for one think that it is enough, and do believe the Chinese arms control envoy when he says China's stockpile is in the range of France and the UK's.

The reverse is also true. Whether 300 is enough is also not for you to decide either. Furthermore, whether the actual number being 300 is factual or not is also not clear. Being hinted on by diplomats with clear and necessary political motivations means their hints are nothing indicative of the truth. The hint of China's warhead count being in the vicinity of "UK and France" (whether that means UK or France or UK + France also ambiguous) is still absolutely nothing to go on. These are politicians playing the their usual deception games here in this particular case and OF COURSE IT IS!

The opinions here can generally be separated into the group that for inexplicable reasons think China expanding its warhead count somehow becomes a crazy stupid arms build up and the group that thinks China having fewer than 1000 warheads that can be delivered to the US and Europe is the minimal deterrence and/or minimal amount required for a secondary strike/ retaliatory strike which China is totally destroyed (the ultimate wetdream of all China haters, racists, neo-nazis, libtards, western propaganda consumer).

Seriously let's have a genuine think. Why are you equating China increasing its warhead count and delivery sophistication to guarantee utter annihilation of the world a bad thing when it is something designed to respond to actual first strike? Destroying evil after being destroyed by it is not a bad policy. You're talking like China is holding the world as a hostage the EXACT same way the USA actually terrorises the non-western world. And you want to hate on a policy that can allow China the chance to free itself from the threat of destruction??! Puzzling. In defense of your strange thoughts you use some outrageous assumptions you continue to avoid explaining thoroughly.

These assumptions of yours are - China increasing warhead numbers from 300 to anything reasonable like 1000 to 5000 would be a direct threat to the US which keep over 5000 warheads and this will certainly bring both nations into a fruitless arms race. The implication here is that you prefer China to be in a position where it can be wiped out by the US (the wetdream) while China should NOT have the means to settle the score. Because China deserves death while actual evil deserves to proliferate and continue to poison the mind and soul of the remaining world. How very Chinese and magnanimous of you.

China with 300 warheads or thereabouts are more than enough (yeah trust you on this) to respond to all enemies that benefit from China being destroyed and are actively pursuing such a world. Yeah no way this is true. Surprise first strike may very well (you don't know any better than we do) take out the majority of China's means of secondary strike. Assuming it won't is almost criminally irresponsible for policy makers. Even if they're confident, I would be surprised if they don't still double up on that just to be sure since it costs very very very very very very very very^n little as a price to pay just to ensure it isn't hit or can hit back just as hard. Simply why leave this up to chance? You have failed to prove that expanding nuclear arm will do genuinely significant economic or political harm.

Why will there be a resurgence of USSR vs USA cold war dynamic if China brings warhead count from 300 to say 3000?? Where on earth does this assumption come from? China's task here is simple. Build enough nuclear weapons to cover the earth at least once over and ensure human civilisation cannot go on after China's destruction in a nuclear war brought about by the US or another that's not China. This is extremely fair and morally justified. Remember in these cases no one is saying China should threaten first use or ever actually use nukes unless it is in response. Furthermore, China should increase the number of delivery systems and continue improving their survivability and sophistication to ensure those warheads can all be delivered without being intercepted or countered somehow.

From the looks of China's delivery systems and the hinted quantity, it seems China is serious about preserving a minimal retaliation strike that can erase civilisation on this planet. Those military commentators saying ballistic missile numbers are in the thousands (including shorter ranged ones of course) and the fact that China launches hundreds of various ranged ballistic missiles in training every year is indicative that the actual numbers are far greater than those diplomats like to say when it's necessary to downplay WMD capability in international forums. Consider China's great investments in creating the "underground great war" it's early warning network since the 1960s, and the relative ease of which of this can be achieved and maintained? Yeah it's quite unlikely China has 300 warheads and a few hundred missiles capable of delivery them.

China is in a position to be and is currently threatened militarily by all of NATO plus Japan and Australia. It has no nuclear umbrella and has about 20 targets to hit with nukes if it is hit itself. A nation like UK doesn't need a large stockpile but China does. It simply doesn't make sense to be so criminally irresponsible especially when China has the means (and more importantly the need) to increase its MAD capability to at least where Russia is now.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
............. The fact that the US has not attempted nuclear blackmail even in this period of high tensions should put that notion to rest.

The US has attempted nuclear blackmail on China in multiple occasions, the most famous one during Korean war .. actually that the main reason China (even poor and technologically backward) forced to develop nuke and successfully denoted it for the first time on 16 Oct 1964 ..... over 55 years ago
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


interesting that even China has developed nuke over 55 yrs ago, some the US senators didn't know that China had nukes o_O
 

hashtagpls

Senior Member
Registered Member
I'm inclined to believe the USG has tried nuclear blackmail more than a few times these past few years; the most recent being when turmp got covid and nuclear command and control planes were dispatched.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
interesting that even China has developed nuke over 55 yrs ago, some the US senators didn't know that China had nukes o_O

Showing how much the general population care about the foreign countries military force.

They have an illusion about the invulnerability of USA regards of foreign weapons.

Hence the shock about NK nuke in the USA elite, there was no similar hyperventilation anywhere around the world - as soon as the mainland suffering losses comparable of a single terror bombing of Berlin the USA political class loose its freedom of decision regards of military force and war abroad.

In practice the number of nukes in China doesn't count - the USA political/military elite could be considered like a 18 years old ADHD male behind the wheel of a muscle car or a heavy motorbike - will learn only from the first serious accident, where he has to spend moths in the hospital.
 

totenchan

Junior Member
Registered Member
The reverse is also true. Whether 300 is enough is also not for you to decide either. Furthermore, whether the actual number being 300 is factual or not is also not clear. Being hinted on by diplomats with clear and necessary political motivations means their hints are nothing indicative of the truth. The hint of China's warhead count being in the vicinity of "UK and France" (whether that means UK or France or UK + France also ambiguous) is still absolutely nothing to go on. These are politicians playing the their usual deception games here in this particular case and OF COURSE IT IS!

The opinions here can generally be separated into the group that for inexplicable reasons think China expanding its warhead count somehow becomes a crazy stupid arms build up and the group that thinks China having fewer than 1000 warheads that can be delivered to the US and Europe is the minimal deterrence and/or minimal amount required for a secondary strike/ retaliatory strike which China is totally destroyed (the ultimate wetdream of all China haters, racists, neo-nazis, libtards, western propaganda consumer).

Seriously let's have a genuine think. Why are you equating China increasing its warhead count and delivery sophistication to guarantee utter annihilation of the world a bad thing when it is something designed to respond to actual first strike? Destroying evil after being destroyed by it is not a bad policy. You're talking like China is holding the world as a hostage the EXACT same way the USA actually terrorises the non-western world. And you want to hate on a policy that can allow China the chance to free itself from the threat of destruction??! Puzzling. In defense of your strange thoughts you use some outrageous assumptions you continue to avoid explaining thoroughly.

These assumptions of yours are - China increasing warhead numbers from 300 to anything reasonable like 1000 to 5000 would be a direct threat to the US which keep over 5000 warheads and this will certainly bring both nations into a fruitless arms race. The implication here is that you prefer China to be in a position where it can be wiped out by the US (the wetdream) while China should NOT have the means to settle the score. Because China deserves death while actual evil deserves to proliferate and continue to poison the mind and soul of the remaining world. How very Chinese and magnanimous of you.

China with 300 warheads or thereabouts are more than enough (yeah trust you on this) to respond to all enemies that benefit from China being destroyed and are actively pursuing such a world. Yeah no way this is true. Surprise first strike may very well (you don't know any better than we do) take out the majority of China's means of secondary strike. Assuming it won't is almost criminally irresponsible for policy makers. Even if they're confident, I would be surprised if they don't still double up on that just to be sure since it costs very very very very very very very very^n little as a price to pay just to ensure it isn't hit or can hit back just as hard. Simply why leave this up to chance? You have failed to prove that expanding nuclear arm will do genuinely significant economic or political harm.

Why will there be a resurgence of USSR vs USA cold war dynamic if China brings warhead count from 300 to say 3000?? Where on earth does this assumption come from? China's task here is simple. Build enough nuclear weapons to cover the earth at least once over and ensure human civilisation cannot go on after China's destruction in a nuclear war brought about by the US or another that's not China. This is extremely fair and morally justified. Remember in these cases no one is saying China should threaten first use or ever actually use nukes unless it is in response. Furthermore, China should increase the number of delivery systems and continue improving their survivability and sophistication to ensure those warheads can all be delivered without being intercepted or countered somehow.

From the looks of China's delivery systems and the hinted quantity, it seems China is serious about preserving a minimal retaliation strike that can erase civilisation on this planet. Those military commentators saying ballistic missile numbers are in the thousands (including shorter ranged ones of course) and the fact that China launches hundreds of various ranged ballistic missiles in training every year is indicative that the actual numbers are far greater than those diplomats like to say when it's necessary to downplay WMD capability in international forums. Consider China's great investments in creating the "underground great war" it's early warning network since the 1960s, and the relative ease of which of this can be achieved and maintained? Yeah it's quite unlikely China has 300 warheads and a few hundred missiles capable of delivery them.

China is in a position to be and is currently threatened militarily by all of NATO plus Japan and Australia. It has no nuclear umbrella and has about 20 targets to hit with nukes if it is hit itself. A nation like UK doesn't need a large stockpile but China does. It simply doesn't make sense to be so criminally irresponsible especially when China has the means (and more importantly the need) to increase its MAD capability to at least where Russia is now.
Almost nothing in your post warrants a serious response at this point, since I think I've made my positions very clear, and I doubt that we'll come to an agreement on anything we still disagree on. But "enough warheads to destroy the world" is in fact the exact opposite of a minimum deterrence policy. I just want to make that very clear.
 

PUFF_DRAGON

New Member
Registered Member
Minimal deterrence should essentially be enough warheads to take a bolt from the blue counter-force nuclear strike and then still have enough warheads and launchers left to reduce the offending polity and all of its treaty allies to Medieval radioactive hellscapes.

Though to be fair, the PRC can count on an implicit Russian nuclear umbrella, since if the US plasters China with nukes, the Russians will correctly identify the USG as completely insane and retreat to their bunkers and launch everything.
 

caohailiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
Though to be fair, the PRC can count on an implicit Russian nuclear umbrella, since if the US plasters China with nukes, the Russians will correctly identify the USG as completely insane and retreat to their bunkers and launch everything.
do you have any proof on this notion? Or at least any sound logic?
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Almost nothing in your post warrants a serious response at this point, since I think I've made my positions very clear, and I doubt that we'll come to an agreement on anything we still disagree on. But "enough warheads to destroy the world" is in fact the exact opposite of a minimum deterrence policy. I just want to make that very clear.

You've literally never explained your position beyond calling it correct for mysteriously unreachable reasons. You can start on the point you raised (out of many, many points some of us have actually tried to explain). Why should China maintain what you personally define as a "minimum deterrence policy" - one with around 300 or so warheads with about only fraction of those capable of reaching the US. Very keen to understand this... still waiting for the answer.

1. Why is 300 total warheads enough deterrence according to you? Explain how it is absolutely 100% certain that 300 warheads ensures total annihilation of at least the US if not also western Europe in a secondary strike. Only then can you call 300 warheads on a few dozen ICBM+SLBM a credible deterrence.

2. Why should China maintain only this "minimum deterrence policy"?? Explain how China benefits from this. You've already been constantly ignoring the explanations why this puts China at risk of being hit with surprise first strike which is absolutely something the US is keen to do if you only look at how many delivery systems and warheads the US have. If not for successful first strike that can grant them confidence in weathering a retaliation strike, why on earth would they insist on dozens of SSBNs carrying hundreds of missiles and thousands of warheads on ICBMs while also developing and fielding increasingly capable delivery?

3. What is the loss for China if it does pursue a higher warhead count in a range that is still below what the US and Russia publicly disclose they have? Why is it bad for China to even build up up to half their known stockpiles and half their long range delivery in number and equal if not superior in capability?

My answers to the above:

1. I think 300 warheads isn't enough because some may fail, some may miss, some will get intercepted and out of 300 warheads, exactly how many are mounted on ICBM/SLBMs? What about retaliating against non-US targets that cooperate or in-fact initiated nuclear strikes on China? Why ignore all these potential outcomes? Is it responsible to? NO!

Not only that but can we even be close to confident in just 300 warheads providing deterrence when we suspect there is a decent chance it's not even enough to destroy whoever launched first. LOL that's criminally irresponsible now.

2. It shouldn't have minimum deterrence because there is no longer any good political goodwill from saying this line. No one cares anymore. If there is no more political benefit and we know the monetary savings are pocket change (between 300 warheads and something like 1000).

3. Whatever the cost is, the benefits of securing genuine military deterrence is more than worthy in fact it is of the utmost importance, far more than mass producing J-20s and Type 055s. This is the foundation of China's military strength and deterrence as it faces multiple military powers and the global military superpower. It isn't in a position like UK or India or even Japan. China has no nuclear umbrella, no strong military ally that will come offer a hand. It does however have US, UK, France, India, and many other militaries that threaten its sovereignty and even the nation's right to prosper. When those nukes come, they will be coming from all four of those nations if not more. Don't kid yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top