China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[ougoah]

Things go wrong or with unexpected outcomes more often than spec sheets suggest. Patriot missiles had a whopping ~10% success rate before they realised there were some oversights. Japanese F-2 AESA units weren't giving correct target information. Indian Mirages and Sukhois ended up totally incapable of shooting at PAF fighters when actual combat started, their comms jammed and punches rendered totally ineffective. SAMs proven far less than infallible in multiple conflicts.

Weapons don't always behave the way engineers and career politicians think they will. Nukes and delivery systems are no different. Further complicate matters with I'm sure many classified BMD and counter strategies that are out there, how is it reasonable for anyone to think China can make do with 300 warheads? Even 1000 warheads should make Beijing sleepless and uneasy. This is partly why both the US and Russia (the main "other" guys because UK France etc fall under US group) both insist on more than 5000 warheads publicly disclosed.

China is an independent power group that can be politically considered neutral to aligned with Russia but it is facing the US and all its underlings. That's over 6000 warheads pointed at China and some people think it's too much to ask for China to increase its numbers to at least 1000 where it can just about confidently hit back hard enough to make the other think twice. That's still pathetic by my personal standards and I understand we're talking world ending scenarios that ideally shouldn't be prepared for but it isn't China with the military posture and the ridiculously high warhead count lol. I'd be all for China lowering warhead numbers if US and co. have but a few hundred themselves. This simply isn't the case so is it too much to think China should try to maintain maybe even up to half the military strength of its antagonists? Only a China hater could possibly think otherwise. Could be why a few proper explanations is so elusive from totenchan.

BTW one isn't correct or gifted with secret knowledge by uttering one liner non-answers with a tone of superiority. It just makes your position look weaker.

If anything, pursuing this passive weak posture is begging for trouble and inviting ideas. Letting the belligerent group know you can hit back at least as hard even if there isn't a Chinese person left alive, is the first thing to secure. It comes before improving conventional military. Thankfully Chinese leaders actually understand this and I'm sure it's why they do hint and show what China's actually got while the diplomats whisper some worthless nonsense about limited stockpiles and no intention of arms race when the political discussion suits. China surely has enough to make Earth unhabitable. It would be the price for making the most populous nation uninhabitable. And that's very much fair. In China's entire history, it has never threatened use or even threatened invasion! There is no questioning its nuclear policy but maintaining MAD should be the last thing it ever lets go of.

 

[quantumlight]

Things go wrong or with unexpected outcomes more often than spec sheets suggest. Patriot missiles had a whopping ~10% success rate before they realised there were some oversights. Japanese F-2 AESA units weren't giving correct target information. Indian Mirages and Sukhois ended up totally incapable of shooting at PAF fighters when actual combat started, their comms jammed and punches rendered totally ineffective. SAMs proven far less than infallible in multiple conflicts.

Weapons don't always behave the way engineers and career politicians think they will. Nukes and delivery systems are no different. Further complicate matters with I'm sure many classified BMD and counter strategies that are out there, how is it reasonable for anyone to think China can make do with 300 warheads? Even 1000 warheads should make Beijing sleepless and uneasy. This is partly why both the US and Russia (the main "other" guys because UK France etc fall under US group) both insist on more than 5000 warheads publicly disclosed.

China is an independent power group that can be politically considered neutral to aligned with Russia but it is facing the US and all its underlings. That's over 6000 warheads pointed at China and some people think it's too much to ask for China to increase its numbers to at least 1000 where it can just about confidently hit back hard enough to make the other think twice. That's still pathetic by my personal standards and I understand we're talking world ending scenarios that ideally shouldn't be prepared for but it isn't China with the military posture and the ridiculously high warhead count lol. I'd be all for China lowering warhead numbers if US and co. have but a few hundred themselves. This simply isn't the case so is it too much to think China should try to maintain maybe even up to half the military strength of its antagonists? Only a China hater could possibly think otherwise. Could be why a few proper explanations is so elusive from totenchan.

BTW one isn't correct or gifted with secret knowledge by uttering one liner non-answers with a tone of superiority. It just makes your position look weaker.

If anything, pursuing this passive weak posture is begging for trouble and inviting ideas. Letting the belligerent group know you can hit back at least as hard even if there isn't a Chinese person left alive, is the first thing to secure. It comes before improving conventional military. Thankfully Chinese leaders actually understand this and I'm sure it's why they do hint and show what China's actually got while the diplomats whisper some worthless nonsense about limited stockpiles and no intention of arms race when the political discussion suits. China surely has enough to make Earth unhabitable. It would be the price for making the most populous nation uninhabitable. And that's very much fair. In China's entire history, it has never threatened use or even threatened invasion! There is no questioning its nuclear policy but maintaining MAD should be the last thing it ever lets go of.

Anyone who keeps pushing the view that China MUST never go beyond 300 nukes is probably CIA provocateur to be honest... like the same group of folks that said China needs 300 more years to catch up to the West ....

China needs at least 1000 nukes bare minimum, and 3000 is a good number, with 10,000 being a comfortable margin of error/ upper bound. As far as the discussion of keeping it at 300, that is a nonstarter.

The dynamic, at high level, is simple... Ultimately China cannot control what others, including the US, does or does not do... China can only control China... It should base the decision on what is a good number to insure credible deterrence in the event of a surprise first strike... The whole "accidental starting a nuclear arms race" is a nonstarter... it was the US who first pulled out of the START, the US who reneged on the Iran deal, and the US who in its entirely history has always been at war except for like a dozen or so years of peace... you gotta look at the bigger picture and put everything in proper context here... it is the US who is encircling China with bases and possibly medium range nukes in the future, NOT the other way around.. and it is the US who actually used nukes on civilian populations cities...

Bottom line is there is a number (between 3000 to 10000 nukes) that if China reached this number, it would guarantee MAD regardless if US goes crazy and gets 10x or 100x the number of nukes to challenge China in an so-called arms race... that is the beauty and magic of numbers, maths, physics surrounding nuclear weapons... at over a certain amount, China gets security no matter what the US does or does not do... who that is patriotic to the motherland could possibly say no to this?

 

[ougoah]

Anyone who keeps pushing the view that China MUST never go beyond 300 nukes is probably CIA provocateur to be honest...

Not exactly but definitely someone who doesn't have China's best interest at heart if not worse. This isn't something he can explain. It's akin to saying China shouldn't upgrade its ability to defend itself and respond to attacks while it's not just acceptable but righteous for the attacker to have the means to attack and destroy China with no real consequences. He can't explain how this isn't actually the case. Why is it that China upping warheads from assumed 300 to arbitrary 1000 so offensive and unacceptable to a nation with over 5000 and such action will create an arms race that will certainly cripple China? Why? Is the point at 1000? or 999? or 5000? lol no answer.

It's just "I'm telling you 300 warheads is enough and any more is going to jeopardise China's fantastic standing with the US... anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't know or understand well enough". lol total cop outs. Actual provocateurs gain nothing from saying this in a Chinese forum so I suspect those thoughts are genuine and made by a shallow understanding (with illusion of depth) of nuclear weapons, MAD, and diplomatic dialogue on proliferation. The person thinks their position is appropriate and has only been able to see the parts where their theories make sense because they've read up on a certain narrow aspect of these topics. They are unable to provide any depth to the discussion or answer the questions many members have raised.

Usually these kinds of people have a hidden quality that will make everyone go ahhhhhhh that's why, when it is disclosed lol. It's like religious nutjobs or the kind that have some belief systems that are forcing their opinions on certain topics ... anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, every religion that isn't yours, anti-abortionists, racists, etc etc. I feel the thing that would make this all make more sense is if the person believes the world should never be destroyed and would prefer China be wiped out over the Earth wiped clean. Or something of that effective equal. His position is totally inexplicable to me and was rather curious.

 

[j17wang]

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.

The more I think about it, why should I as a chinese person even F*** cares about the perspective of a "new cold war" dynamic. A cold war is a very small price to pay to have the ability to create a deterrent arsenal that prevents a "hot war". If someone were to offer the following trade, would you prefer the new cold war with America and the west or 10,000 nuclear warheads, I would take the 10,000 warheads in a heart beat. Anybody that advocates otherwise is essentially okay with the annihilation of the Chinese race.

 

[gelgoog]

...
For your second point: Why the fuck would China want to join an arms control treaty? Why would China expand it's arsenal, only to have all investment in that arsenal cucked by adhering to arms control, like what happened with the US and Russia? Why would China want to reach that point? Another benefit of China's minimum deterrence policy is not needing to join bilateral arms control between the US and Russia.
...

Agreed, China shouldn't join any such treaty. It would be a repeat of the Washington Naval Treaty which the US used to limit Japanese Navy size in XXth century. This had repercussions for Japan later on. China should only join such a treaty if it is allowed to have a force large enough for its requirements.

 

[totenchan]

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.

I've explained my positions I think in a fair bit of detail, but I suppose you can't be blamed for reading everything I write.

1. 300 total warheads is enough because there is no realistic way either the US or Europe can take out that number of nukes because of how China's nuclear forces are organized. You, nor anybody else, has described how the US could track and destroy in real-time thousands of TELs dispersed in Chinese mountains and underground passages. This will be even more difficult once China begins deterrence patrols with nuke subs, which will begin happening in a couple years or less. China does not need to "annihilate" all of the US and Western Europe to ensure deterrence. Such a suggestion is patently absurd. China just needs to be able to cripple the US for good to ensure deterrence, which is could do with ten nukes, and the the 300 are there for assurance. The numbers being thrown out of 1000 and above are not based on any sort of argument, just that "the US and Russia have more so we need more!". The only scenario in which this is the case is if one assumes the US is not a rational actor. In this case, the entire paradigm of MAD goes out the window, and we can happily progress down a logical path that ends in the conclusion that China needs to nuke the US before we are nuked ourselves.

2. Why should China maintain a minimum deterrence policy? Why don't you ask Chinese leadership that?? Clearly you aren't willing to listen to my explanations, so do some reading on Chinese nuclear policy white papers. A simple study of any model- game theory or otherwise- suggests that if China does abandon minimum deterrence in favor of a more aggressive nuclear policy, the result is very likely going to be an arms race. Many people on this forum apparently do not realize that an arms race does not stem from a race to parity, but instead a race to superiority, and the defense contractors in the US serve as the political will for an arms race with China. If China begins expanding it's arsenal beyond minimum deterrence, America will force it into an arms race. You'd also quickly realize that a surprise American nuclear strike is by far the dumbest reason to abandon a no first use policy - far more compelling reasons are deterrence of US intervention in a Taiwan contingency, and increased strategic flexibility. As for the fantasy of sneaking up a bunch of Ohio-classes into the Pacific - the submarines are on a scheduled rotation, and ones that are not on patrol are easily tracked.

3. Does the increase in policy stem from a change in China's declared nuclear policy? Then the cost is an arms race. Does the increase stem from a fear that the minimum deterrence of China is being eroded? Then the cost is far lower, simply the opportunity cost of the increase in stockpile. This has always been my position. What you don't seem to realize, and what I feel like I need to drill into your head, is that the US and Russia pursue counter-force strategies, whereas China only needs counter-value. The stockpiles cannot be compared. Your worldview is intensely distorted if you genuinely believe in some Manichean worldview of China against the world, where the rest of the world are not rational actors, while China is the only one that believes in deterrence. What a childish view of the world. If you think I have a superior attitude, it's because you are thinking like a child. Dividing the world into power blocks like some sort of game, I find such things hilarious.


China's stockpile size is not what keeps China from an arms race, it's policies are. If China decides to expand the current stockpile, it would likely not result in an ams race, and I would support it as long as China adheres to it's own declaratory policies on minimum deterrence. What annoys me about people like you is that you seem to see no distinction between expanding the stockpile to what is needed for deterrence, or instead building up enough nukes to completely annihilate "The US and Western Europe". I'll ignore the fact that you've literally conjured arguments out of thin air and attributed them to me, that only assures me of your bad faith, if anything. But at least don't accuse me of wanting China wiped off the Earth. Seriously, fuck off.

 

[Sardaukar20]

Not exactly but definitely someone who doesn't have China's best interest at heart if not worse. This isn't something he can explain. It's akin to saying China shouldn't upgrade its ability to defend itself and respond to attacks while it's not just acceptable but righteous for the attacker to have the means to attack and destroy China with no real consequences. He can't explain how this isn't actually the case. Why is it that China upping warheads from assumed 300 to arbitrary 1000 so offensive and unacceptable to a nation with over 5000 and such action will create an arms race that will certainly cripple China? Why? Is the point at 1000? or 999? or 5000? lol no answer.

It's just "I'm telling you 300 warheads is enough and any more is going to jeopardise China's fantastic standing with the US... anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't know or understand well enough". lol total cop outs. Actual provocateurs gain nothing from saying this in a Chinese forum so I suspect those thoughts are genuine and made by a shallow understanding (with illusion of depth) of nuclear weapons, MAD, and diplomatic dialogue on proliferation. The person thinks their position is appropriate and has only been able to see the parts where their theories make sense because they've read up on a certain narrow aspect of these topics. They are unable to provide any depth to the discussion or answer the questions many members have raised.

Usually these kinds of people have a hidden quality that will make everyone go ahhhhhhh that's why, when it is disclosed lol. It's like religious nutjobs or the kind that have some belief systems that are forcing their opinions on certain topics ... anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, every religion that isn't yours, anti-abortionists, racists, etc etc. I feel the thing that would make this all make more sense is if the person believes the world should never be destroyed and would prefer China be wiped out over the Earth wiped clean. Or something of that effective equal. His position is totally inexplicable to me and was rather curious.

LOL... Agreed. I too am getting sick of totenchan's "300 warheads only" argument. He doesn't seem to listen to any counter arguments. He lives in his own world, only listening to his own arguments.

These are a few ridiculous points he always harps on:

1) China's 300 warheads is enough. A couple of Chinese nukes hitting US cities would bankrupt the USA and poof, USA is done. He seem to think real life is like a Dr Strangelove movie. WW3 starts, nukes starts exploding in the US and boom, movie credits.

Answer: totenchan conveniently ignores, that nukes are nowhere near as strong as in the movies. China could land at best, 150 nukes on the USA. Lets put some things into perspective. The US conducted 904 nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada Test site. Does the USA look like Fallout 4 now? So how would 150 nukes punish the USA? If the US initiated a first-strike, China could receive thousands of US nukes. This makes China more like the one who could look like Fallout 4. 150 or all 300 Chinese nukes in the US OTOH will give millions dead, and a devastated economy. But the US will nevertheless be in far better shape to recover and rule a new post-nuclear war world that is minus one China.

2) China's TELs and undergound nuclear arsenal are extremely survivable. Barely a handful would be destroyed in US first-strike. The tunnels would protect them.

Answer: Let's assume that China's TELs all survive the first strike. Let's ignore collapsed tunnels, destroyed roads, EMP effects, decapitated military command, confusion, radiation, and all the other nasty stuff of full-scale nuclear warfare. Let's assume that all of China's TELs that survive the first strike are popping into action. So now, they emerge from their tunnels and bunkers.
1st, what is stopping the US to send another salvo of a few hundred warheads to pepper the area where these missile sites are suspected to be: ie. likely Manchuria and Xinjiang. Guess what? Even after a first salvo of hundreds of US nukes equivalent to China's entire stockpile, it still has thousands more to send in for a second salvo to finish the job.

2nd, any surviving Chinese DF-5B, DF-31A, DF-41, JL-2, or JL-3 (when available) missiles would still have to brave the entire US BMD defense network established in Asia Pacific and Western-Eastern Europe. With only 300 warheads, how many ICBMs and SLBMs could be have been loaded and ready to go at any one time? Simple answer is: Not enough! So, pray that those remaining missiles can still exact China's final revenge. What a ridiculous military strategy.

3) China getting more nukes would start a nuclear arms race with the US.

Answer: totenchan seems to conveniently ignore that it is the US that is starting this latest nuclear arms race. The US has ringed China with a network of bases that can house both nukes and BMDs. The US have walked away from the ABM treaty, INF treaty, and START treaties. The US have developed new nuclear weapons like small warheads, and GPS-enabled B61 bombs. The US is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons in war. The US military circle is already discussing that nuclear war is no longer unthinkable, but actually winnable. Especially against China. Why is totenchan ignoring these well established facts, and instead focusing on a hypothetical 'evil' if China is getting more nukes?

4) Getting more nukes would bankrupt China.

Answer: Again. totenchan has ignored all of our explanations why this would never be the case for China today. First we (and the CCP) are not aiming for 45000 nukes. 1000-5000 would be a more realistic number. Second, China's economy is far stronger than the USSR's economy when it had 45000 nukes. So China has plenty of money to spare for 5000 to even 10000 nukes. But if China gets 1000 nukes, it'll bankrupt? Based on what economic theory? totenchan never cares to explain.

We have explained many, many, many, times that China's future survival, (not economic or political) but actual survival itself is at stake. The world is no longer a friendly place for China. China is now enemy no.1. There are the US, UK, France, and India, who either have no problem about nuking China, or actually look forward to enjoying it. China have done so much to built itself up to be the 2nd richest nation on Earth. Now it has a responsibility to protect its future. Wasn't the fall of Imperial China to the Century of Humiliation lesson enough? You could build great wealth, but without defence, any bandit or barbarian stronger than you can easily rob you of that wealth.

In conclusion, I think you're right. totenchan could be a veiled China-hater. Otherwise, he could be having an issue of superiority complex. He seems to have this concept that China does not have a right to have an effective nuclear deterrence. His only explanation is that 300 is enough, and anymore than that, China is bankrupt. Period. No facts, no explanation, and not even listening to any valid counter-arguments. That sounds like typical arrogance. Like that elite-class preacher telling us that black is black, and white is white. Just because he said so. Only that he doesn't understand the concept of strategic nuclear warfare. Especially the merits of the MAD deterrence strategy.

 

[totenchan]

LOL... Agreed. I too am getting sick of totenchan's "300 warheads only" argument. He doesn't seem to listen to any counter arguments. He lives in his own world, only listening to his own arguments.

These are a few ridiculous points he always harps on:

1) China's 300 warheads is enough. A couple of Chinese nukes hitting US cities would bankrupt the USA and poof, USA is done. He seem to think real life is like a Dr Strangelove movie. WW3 starts, nukes starts exploding in the US and boom, movie credits.

Answer: totenchan conveniently ignores, that nukes are nowhere near as strong as in the movies. China could land at best, 150 nukes on the USA. Lets put some things into perspective. The US conducted 904 nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada Test site. Does the USA look like Fallout 4 now? So how would 150 nukes punish the USA? If the US initiated a first-strike, China could receive thousands of US nukes. This makes China more like the one who could look like Fallout 4. 150 or all 300 Chinese nukes in the US OTOH will give millions dead, and a devastated economy. But the US will nevertheless be in far better shape to recover and rule a new post-nuclear war world that is minus one China.

2) China's TELs and undergound nuclear arsenal are extremely survivable. Barely a handful would be destroyed in US first-strike. The tunnels would protect them.

Answer: Let's assume that China's TELs all survive the first strike. Let's ignore collapsed tunnels, destroyed roads, EMP effects, decapitated military command, confusion, radiation, and all the other nasty stuff of full-scale nuclear warfare. Let's assume that all of China's TELs that survive the first strike are popping into action. So now, they emerge from their tunnels and bunkers.
1st, what is stopping the US to send another salvo of a few hundred warheads to pepper the area where these missile sites are suspected to be: ie. likely Manchuria and Xinjiang. Guess what? Even after a first salvo of hundreds of US nukes equivalent to China's entire stockpile, it still has thousands more to send in for a second salvo to finish the job.

2nd, any surviving Chinese DF-5B, DF-31A, DF-41, JL-2, or JL-3 (when available) missiles would still have to brave the entire US BMD defense network established in Asia Pacific and Western-Eastern Europe. With only 300 warheads, how many ICBMs and SLBMs could be have been loaded and ready to go at any one time? Simple answer is: Not enough! So, pray that those remaining missiles can still exact China's final revenge. What a ridiculous military strategy.

3) China getting more nukes would start a nuclear arms race with the US.

Answer: totenchan seems to conveniently ignore that it is the US that is starting this latest nuclear arms race. The US has ringed China with a network of bases that can house both nukes and BMDs. The US have walked away from the ABM treaty, INF treaty, and START treaties. The US have developed new nuclear weapons like small warheads, and GPS-enabled B61 bombs. The US is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons in war. The US military circle is already discussing that nuclear war is no longer unthinkable, but actually winnable. Especially against China. Why is totenchan ignoring these well established facts, and instead focusing on a hypothetical 'evil' if China is getting more nukes?

4) Getting more nukes would bankrupt China.

Answer: Again. totenchan has ignored all of our explanations why this would never be the case for China today. First we (and the CCP) are not aiming for 45000 nukes. 1000-5000 would be a more realistic number. Second, China's economy is far stronger than the USSR's economy when it had 45000 nukes. So China has plenty of money to spare for 5000 to even 10000 nukes. But if China gets 1000 nukes, it'll bankrupt? Based on what economic theory? totenchan never cares to explain.

We have explained many, many, many, times that China's future survival, (not economic or political) but actual survival itself is at stake. The world is no longer a friendly place for China. China is now enemy no.1. There are the US, UK, France, and India, who either have no problem about nuking China, or actually look forward to enjoying it. China have done so much to built itself up to be the 2nd richest nation on Earth. Now it has a responsibility to protect its future. Wasn't the fall of Imperial China to the Century of Humiliation lesson enough? You could build great wealth, but without defence, any bandit or barbarian stronger than you can easily rob you of that wealth.

In conclusion, I think you're right. totenchan could be a veiled China-hater. Otherwise, he could be having an issue of superiority complex. He seems to have this concept that China does not have a right to have an effective nuclear deterrence. His only explanation is that 300 is enough, and anymore than that, China is bankrupt. Period. No facts, no explanation, and not even listening to any valid counter-arguments. That sounds like typical arrogance. Like that elite-class preacher telling us that black is black, and white is white. Just because he said so. Only that he doesn't understand the concept of strategic nuclear warfare. Especially the merits of the MAD deterrence strategy.

1) and 2) I've literally made entire posts addressing people who think that the Chinese deterrent is not survivable, or that the American BMD system is in fact at all effective. I've also said that if the American BMD system does improve any more, it would absolutely be grounds for a stockpile increase. This would be the same in the case that the US becomes able to track a vast amount of mobile TELs. So far, neither of these things have happened.
As for your position that after being nuked by China, America would recover: It would not, because it has lost the vast majority of it's economy for good. America will never be relevant again after it is nuked. Not only did it nuke it's largest trading partner and most of it's supply lines, but in response, it has also lost the drivers of economic growth, the cities, as well as vast amounts of infrastructure. I don't know why you brought up the Nevada test site, try and use your brain a bit. Your estimates for the amount of the US population lost are very off, by the way. During the Cold War, it was estimated that 40 nukes would kill around 20 percent of the US population, this was actually part of the reason why the US switched from counter-value to counter-force. Nowadays, urbanization has probably pushed that number up ten or so percent, if not more. China's nukes can likely do much more than this.

3) I have never, not once, portrayed China as "evil". My argument is that China's policy of minimum deterrence keeps China mostly out of arms races. If the US tries to initiate an arms race, China will simply not participate with a minimum deterrence policy, until it reaches the point where China's ability to deter is eroded, at which point the minimum deterrence policy will still keep China's wasted resources far lower then the US. This is basically the only way to "win" an arms race, to not participate.

4) I have never stated getting more nukes would bankrupt China, so this is a non-starter. I have only stated that an ARMS RACE could, and even then I have stated that China's economy could likely survive. The problem is the opportunity cost, always has been.

Please stop making up strawmen and attributing them to me. This is very tiresome. Also, please stop resorting to calling me a China-hater, simply because I don't agree with you. I am in fact Chinese, and have probably far more stake in this than most of you people.

 

[W20]

This is crazy talk

If maintaining the official doctrine in public is "China hater", then the CCP is "China hater"

In other words: you have forgotten playing the ball ... to break the other player's leg

reached this level of personal aggression ... the discussion makes no sense

 

[zgx09t]

One thing that confuses me in all of this is the assumption of China minimum deterrence policy equals 300 warheads.
Is this 300 number a mere count of entire inventory, or expected number of warheads that will get delivered with absolute certainty to the correct zip codes?