Not only are the Russians so convinced their currently massive and highly capable secondary strike abilities isn't safe enough for their liking, they've also publicly announced they have nuclear powered subsurface weapon and cruise missile projects that almost certainly are designed for delivering MAD. Poseidon and Burevestnik are both for delivery thermonuclear warheads in case ballistic missiles fail. They also have a range of hypersonic glide MaRVs and who knows what else. And Russia is no longer the main political and military target of the US.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Not only are the Russians so convinced their currently massive and highly capable secondary strike abilities isn't safe enough for their liking, they've also publicly announced they have nuclear powered subsurface weapon and cruise missile projects that almost certainly are designed for delivering MAD. Poseidon and Burevestnik are both for delivery thermonuclear warheads in case ballistic missiles fail. They also have a range of hypersonic glide MaRVs and who knows what else. And Russia is no longer the main political and military target of the US.
The US has also recently publicly announced their interest in fielding counters to hypersonic glide vehicles (the ones that are much trickier to intercept than hypersonic ballistic vehicles). Who knows how far along they already are and they've been testing HGVs for over 40 years now. There is no nuclear security unless China has the numbers to utterly overwhelm countermeasures and BMD even in the worst circumstances on the worst of days.
Why does China's official nuclear policy line need defending? LOL this isn't an international diplomatic forum where gestures and fake promises have value.
Please stop insulting members this way. You are not more intelligent. At least you've failed so far to concisely explain the following. Please do that with simple sentences us unread pinks can understand.
1. how is 300 warheads guaranteed to be enough to overwhelm classified US BMD capabilities?
2. why is it acceptable that China only "cripples" the US in response to the US annihilating China?
3. why is an arms race bad for only China assuming the only way it can happen is from warhead build up (which is patently untrue but I'll just give you that for this question)?
Let's ignore the rest and start with these three.
The only cost that Totenchan could come up with is his hypothetical arms race. There is no explanation why such an arms race would be caused by a more confident and expansive nuclear policy. It doesn't explain how it would undermine China in any meaningful way.
It fails to explain why the US would see if justified to pursue such an arms race even though it still would have many times more warheads. Then it continues to fail more by not explaining why such an arms race is even bad for China except to say China should want to avoid Cold War dynamics but inexplicably assumes that China is USSR in that hilariously bad analogy and inexplicably assumes China will follow the same development pattern and also overspend and over-invest in stockpiling - something no one has even suggested.
He fails to explain the flip side - the important considerations of deterrence and MAD. He doesn't recognise that a larger (not insane) warhead stockpile has immense benefits. It can only improve China's deterrence and it can only improve China's ability to respond to attacks. It even improves China's chances of avoiding conventional war with the US. Why are these points ignored?
But nahhh bruh it's all about avoiding dem arms races ya feel you stupid pinks ... LOL
Totenchan's posts have so far been assumptions to the power of conjecture factorial. Try harder troll. The more you fail here the better pinks look to every reasonable mind.
It fails to explain why the US would see if justified to pursue such an arms race even though it still would have many times more warheads. Then it continues to fail more by not explaining why such an arms race is even bad for China except to say China should want to avoid Cold War dynamics but inexplicably assumes that China is USSR in that hilariously bad analogy and inexplicably assumes China will follow the same development pattern and also overspend and over-invest in stockpiling - something no one has even suggested.
He fails to explain the flip side - the important considerations of deterrence and MAD. He doesn't recognise that a larger (not insane) warhead stockpile has immense benefits. It can only improve China's deterrence and it can only improve China's ability to respond to attacks. It even improves China's chances of avoiding conventional war with the US. Why are these points ignored?
But nahhh bruh it's all about avoiding dem arms races ya feel you stupid pinks ... LOL
Totenchan's posts have so far been assumptions to the power of conjecture factorial. Try harder troll. The more you fail here the better pinks look to every reasonable mind.
From that essay above. Basically you have already acknowledged everything me and others have been arguing about. That China urgently needs to vastly expand its nuclear arsenal according to threat of its nuclear enemies. So why continue arguing with everyone here who don't agree with you? Not only that, why do continue to bring up your ridiculous argument about why China must retain a puny nuclear arsenal, or go bankrupt trying to expand it?
The way you talk makes me feel like I'm talking to an economy-only person, with limited appreciation for hard science and military history. You like to talk about economy, trade partner, opportunity costs, etc. Yet you failed to grasp the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, and the history of war.
You say that America will kill off its largest trading partner and would never be relevant again. Have you ever considered that when America reaches to the point of pushing the button, all bets are off about the economy? Have you ever listened to any of our arguments against your dumb economic-focused point? Its not about the economy, stupid. We are talking about the use of pure genocidal power at the US's disposal to rid of its no.1 economic competitor once and for all. Why? Because at a point when China cannot be stopped from overtaking America, the US probably deduces, that it nuking China is well worth it. Hell we don't even need nukes to stop trade between China and the US, and screw the world's economy. Conventional war can do this job just as fine!
So in a nuclear war, China receives thousands of American and NATO nukes, while USA receives 300 Chinese nukes max. That's not MAD! Everyone is a loser, yes. But guess who recovers better in a post nuclear-war world? China's destruction is assured, but USA's destruction is partial. Anyone with a brain knows that America as we know it will never be the same. But so is the world. China is gone, and the rest of the world is also gonna go bankrupt anyway because of that. Thus, in absolute terms, the US rules supreme in this new bankrupt world. What is it that is so hard to understand?
You wanna argue that just 40 nukes can kill off 20% of the US population based on a phony US cold war study? Its extremely dubious data. Have you forgotten about mitigating factors like: nuclear shelters, BMDs, misses, failed detonations, terrain, etc? Obviously, the party that launches the first strike is probably gonna warn its population to get to their nuclear shelters ahead of time. Have you also conveniently ignored other much more updated scientific studies about actual casualty rates from nuclear war? But that's not the point anyway. Lets look closer at your stupid logic. If just 40 Chinese nukes can kill 20%-30% of the US population. Imagine what can 1000s of nukes from the US and friends could kill in China! How noble of China, to partially kill the US population, for the good deed of the US killing its entire population several times over.
What kind of a dumb statement is that? You didn't even use your brain about why I brought up the Nevada Test site. I didn't estimate human casualties from nuclear tests. Because nuclear tests is not nuclear war! Duh! I did that just to put into perspective, how limited in scale nuclear weapons are relative to the Earth. 900+ nuclear weapons detonation in Nevada, USA didn't result in Armageddon. The point is that nuclear destruction and fallout is relatively localized in the real world. So a post-nuclear war world is pretty much livable in areas relatively untouched by nukes. Like the USA after receiving all 300 Chinese nukes?
All these stupid arguments you make and insult people for, just to prove your point. Why? Do you think you're smarter than the rest of us? Because you're not! You can't even get your facts straight on something as simple as a DF-41 MIRV capacity, which is publicly available anyway. You clown!
You better start growing up. When you insult people's intelligence in this forum. Is it any surprise that people start attacking you? When people don't agree with you, you start insulting, name calling, using profanity, and say that they are beneath your 'superior' intelligence. Do you think that just because you say you're 'Chinese', that you can get away with that kind off arrogance and stupidity? What you are advocating for China today, is the same mistake that had historically brought upon its Century of Humiliation. Which is: underestimating the threat of very powerful imperialist nations. Simply because China's economy is doing just fine? Always the economy over the actual future survival of the nation! How does that make you a better Chinese? Anyway, since you like to question us on who is more 'Chinese'. I'm starting to wonder, are you really Chinese?
Fortunately the Chinese government is not taking any of your nonsense. They have already hinted publicly that they are going to expand China's nuclear arsenal beyond 300 warheads. So, China is definitely expanding its nuclear arsenal as we speak. All thanks to the belligerence of the USA. How's that for a snub to your dumb arguments?
Last edited:
The person replying to me was accusing me of being a China hating CIA shill, and saying that Xi Jinping would purge people like me. Explain to me exactly what was wrong with my reply.
1. I have posted this before, but US current BMD programs are so far extremely unimpressive, and will not work against missiles with any sort of countermeasures. Even the recent interception of an "ICBM" was instead against an "ICBM demonstrator target", which is unlikely to have the same properties of speed and angle that a real ICBM has. I have also stated MULTIPLE TIMES, that if the US BMD program continues along this path, it would be grounds for a significant expansion of the Chinese stockpile, and the fact that no one has addressed this point of mine makes me doubt people replying to me are reading my posts.
2. It doesn't matter whether US destroys or cripples China, or vice versa. Do you think the deterrence effect differs? Think in terms of acceptable scenarios. Does it make a difference to US leadership whether their country is destroyed or made irrelevant for the rest of it's history? No, of course not. Both are unacceptable scenarios, and will have identical deterrence effects. The US abandoned damage minimization strategies during the Cold War because of this dynamic, they have begun pursuing them again because of threats from far less sophisticated actors like North Korea. As I stated in the previous answer, if this gets to the point where China believes it needs to expand it's stockpile, then it will.
3. Are you even reading my fucking posts? Here's the a section of the last paragraph of my last reply to you:
"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"."
And an arms race is bad because arms races have the potential to cripple economies in the long term. This is very basic knowledge. The cost of increased defense spending is a precipitous drop in spending on social programs, which makes economies very brittle. China currently spends a very large amount of money, proportionally speaking, on such programs; it is able to because it's defense budget is balanced by the needs of the nation. The US, on the other hand, has a military-industrial complex that is the result of absurd Cold War era spending, and is completely disproportionate to to it's economy. It will be able to weather an arms race better because of this relic.
All this noise, and not a single source. I was wrong to insult people in this forum, but I've had far more insults thrown my way in comparison. But next time you reply, back your claims up, or I won't bother replying again.
1. A mere existence of BMD is a threat to China and a threat that needs to neutralize. Effectiveness of BMD isn't what China needs to concern about. Nuclear deterrence doesn't evolve around assumption that your enemy counter weapons are not mature enough to be effective. Nuclear deterrence requires foresight and preparedness to ensure at any circumstance your nuclear arsenal is effective and reliable. Wait until your enemy counter weapons to be mature then act is not only shortsighted but also irresponsible.
2. Nuclear deterrence is always a trade off. During the cold war, China was just a regional power that posed little threat to the US domination. However, that's no longer the case. At the moment, China is the number one threat to the US hegemony. Therefore, the logic that works in the cold war for China no longer applied here. Nuclear annihilation has and will always be the state of the US nuclear strategy. Before, the US doesn't think China is worthy of its losing a few cities over but now it might be willing to suffer losses to destroy China. Minimal deterrence doesn't mean the nuclear stockpile has to be small. Minimal deterrence means that a country should have enough nuclear weapons to ensure that your enemy would have second thought before thinking to use nuclear weapons to annihilate you. Since China has become the number one threat towards Western powers then the thinking that destroying a few cities or a few dozens cities of Western powers is enough to deter them to act is outdated.
3. China's declaration of adhering to the minimal deterrence strategy doesn't matter. The US and other Western powers would not view the expansion of the Chinese nuclear stockpile kindly. If China truly decided to expand its nuclear warheads, then expect more pressure and threats from the US. An arm race can be started by the US and will be started by the US. China has its own pace of military modernization but at the same time China would adjust accordingly to the US threats. Since the US has designated China as number one threat and intend to build and expand the BMD and modernize its nuclear warheads then the only logical thing China needs to do is to massively increase its nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles to ensure its national security.
2. Nuclear deterrence is always a trade off. During the cold war, China was just a regional power that posed little threat to the US domination. However, that's no longer the case. At the moment, China is the number one threat to the US hegemony. Therefore, the logic that works in the cold war for China no longer applied here. Nuclear annihilation has and will always be the state of the US nuclear strategy. Before, the US doesn't think China is worthy of its losing a few cities over but now it might be willing to suffer losses to destroy China. Minimal deterrence doesn't mean the nuclear stockpile has to be small. Minimal deterrence means that a country should have enough nuclear weapons to ensure that your enemy would have second thought before thinking to use nuclear weapons to annihilate you. Since China has become the number one threat towards Western powers then the thinking that destroying a few cities or a few dozens cities of Western powers is enough to deter them to act is outdated.
3. China's declaration of adhering to the minimal deterrence strategy doesn't matter. The US and other Western powers would not view the expansion of the Chinese nuclear stockpile kindly. If China truly decided to expand its nuclear warheads, then expect more pressure and threats from the US. An arm race can be started by the US and will be started by the US. China has its own pace of military modernization but at the same time China would adjust accordingly to the US threats. Since the US has designated China as number one threat and intend to build and expand the BMD and modernize its nuclear warheads then the only logical thing China needs to do is to massively increase its nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles to ensure its national security.
bajingan
Senior Member
Your posts full of hostilities and emotional childish tantrums, its your posts that not worth replying, never once did i mention that you are a cia agent lol, and there are unfortunately liberals thinking people like you in China, not saying that you work in CCP or some other important positions (thank god) that warrant purging, however it is FACT that Xi Jinping did purge people (thank god again) in position of power who has the same line of thinking as you do as these people are usually traitors and collaborators
China spends only 1.9% of gdp to its defence
Compare to 3.4% us 3.9% of russia 2.7% of south korea and about the same as uk and france, so you saying that China spends lots of money on defence is false, China actually spends too little in defence considering China has been identified by the hegemon and its allies as enemy numero uno and must be destroyed at all cost
Last edited:
- Status