antiterror13
Brigadier
Why the USA was against the French getting nukes?
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
Why the USA was against the French getting nukes?
No. It's expensive, and it defeats the purpose of China's nuclear doctrine. Which is to prevent getting nuked at all. Tactical nuclear weapons lowers the threshold to use nukes. Its better just stick to zero nukes or all-out nuclear exchange. Makes things simpler and far more peaceful.
It is never wise to have scenarios where the US and China start using tactical nukes to give one side an advantage in any conventional conflict. Generals will itch to use them, when things get desperate.
Besides, if the purpose for having tactical nukes is for bunker busting. Why not just go for large thermobaric bombs tipped with concrete-penetration heads. In confined spaces like a bunker, the effects of any explosives is vastly amplified. Thermobaric explosions in any bunker or tunnel will be far deadlier than in the open. Plus thermobaric bombs are far cheaper in cost and escalation risk than tactical nukes. So China can always drop more of them to compensate the power of tactical nukes.
Less maintenance means it probably using more fissile material (plutonium) and less hydrogen fuel( tritium) in first stage. More fissile material will reduce fizzle but it needs to sacrifice weight of the warhead. So, the nuclear warhead will be heavier than other P5 states. That's why China MIRV has fewer warheads compared to the US, Russia, UK, France, and even Israel. It might be too heavy for ICBM to deliver.
Build tactical nuclear weapon is really not a problem for China but it needs more nuclear test.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Try read this, it would educate you a bit
.
antiterror13
Brigadier
China has already had tactical nukes. And No, it doesn't need any nuclear tests .. all now done in lab with hyper computers
Exactly. In the Korean war, after China entered in the war and beaten US and UN forces in the first phase of Chinese intervention,
they already drew plans when to use atomic weapons against the ill equip, no air force, PVA army.
On 6 December 1950, after the Chinese intervention repelled the UN armies from northern North Korea, General (Army Chief of Staff), General MacArthur, Admiral , General George E. Stratemeyer and staff officers Major General Doyle Hickey, Major General and Major General Edwin K. Wright met in Tokyo to plan strategy countering the Chinese intervention; they considered three potential atomic warfare scenarios encompassing the next weeks and months of warfare.
Well, given the international security environment, I don't think tactical nukes are a bad idea for great powers. Keep in mind that you got countries like France, Russia, and Pakistan (and to a lesser extent, the U.S.) that have active first-use policies (escalate to de-escalate). If the other side uses tactical nukes first, you better have the capacity to play along. If the other side were to use just one tactical nuke with the hope of terrorizing you into backing down, you better have the means of proportional response. That's why the Trump Administration spent so much energy developing low-yield tactical warheads.
If China really need to run a test to get their nuke up to scratch, just do it. It's China's prerogative.
- Status