China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[Sardaukar20]

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.

China essentially just doesn't want any foreign nukes detonating in its territories. For example, if the US detonates a 20kT tactical nuke to take out a Chinese fleet moored at Liaoning. The retaliation would be 1MT nukes landing in major cities like Los Angeles. China's deterrence is simple: not one nuke on our soil and waters. Or else we all end civilization here and live in Fallout dystopia.

1) First, this makes any war of aggression waged against China extremely risky. Because as long as things stay conventional, China retains some pretty significant advantages. The US could overcome that by using tac-nukes, but that would invite total strategic nuclear exchange with China. It is not a proportional response, but a massive deterrence.

2) Second, this gives China much more flexibility to conduct offensive wars. If China invades Taiwan and things stay conventional, chances are that China will win. If the US intervenes, its chances of winning that war conventionally is slim at best. And from point #1, using tac-nukes is a non-option. America will not risk the end of the world for Taiwanese 'independence', regardless of 'shared values'. It also works if China and India engages in a border war. India cannot win a large scale conventional war with China. But if India resorts to tac-nukes (most Indian nukes are so small, they can be consider tactical nukes) to even the odds, back to point #1 again. This gives China the ability to have conventional wars with nuclear powers with reduced risk of nuclear escalation.

If China must, must have tactical nukes. There are more pressing issues that takes precedence now. China needs to seriously buildup its strategic nuclear stockpile now. Once over 1000 strategic nuclear warheads are in stockpile, then can China even consider the luxury of having tactical nukes. And in addition to having the necessary strategic strength to change its nuclear posture to a first-strike doctrine.

In addition, as in my earlier post, there are substitutes to tac-nukes. We are in 2021 after all. Very large thermobaric bombs like Russia's FOAB can do the work of low-yield tac-nukes. Norinco was also rumored to have developed its own version of the FOAB. So China can and should use those first over any tac-nukes. They are non-nuclear, powerful, effective, terrifying, and far cheaper than tac-nukes. No excuse for the enemy to reply with tac-nukes unless they wanna go back to point#1.

 

[SpicySichuan]

America will not risk the end of the world for Taiwanese 'independence', regardless of 'shared values'. It also works if China and India engages in a border war. India cannot win a large scale conventional war with China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I cannot speak for the Biden Administration, but Washington was indeed willing to risk a nuclear war with the USSR and PRC over Taiwan in 1958. Not sure if Washington still believes that "escalating to de-escalate" would work today, but there were historical precedents (1955, 1958, and 1996) showing that Washington WILL fight for Taiwan, be it in the face of Soviet nukes or a much more modern PLA today. Once a conventional shoot-out begins, there is no guarantee that the losing side would not resort to using tactical nukes in an attempt to turn the table.

 

[Nobaron]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I cannot speak for the Biden Administration, but Washington was indeed willing to risk a nuclear war with the USSR and PRC over Taiwan in 1958. Not sure if Washington still believes that "escalating to de-escalate" would work today, but there were historical precedents (1955, 1958, and 1996) showing that Washington WILL fight for Taiwan, be it in the face of Soviet nukes or a much more modern PLA today. Once a conventional shoot-out begins, there is no guarantee that the losing side would not resort to using tactical nukes in an attempt to turn the table.

Interesting.
So what stopped them? Concern about environment? Or China & soviet begged them not to do so?

 

[Sardaukar20]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I cannot speak for the Biden Administration, but Washington was indeed willing to risk a nuclear war with the USSR and PRC over Taiwan in 1958. Not sure if Washington still believes that "escalating to de-escalate" would work today, but there were historical precedents (1955, 1958, and 1996) showing that Washington WILL fight for Taiwan, be it in the face of Soviet nukes or a much more modern PLA today. Once a conventional shoot-out begins, there is no guarantee that the losing side would not resort to using tactical nukes in an attempt to turn the table.

Off course the US might think about nuclear war with the PRC and USSR in 1958. The US had the edge in nuclear weapons stockpile in 1958 over the Soviet Union. The PRC had not even tested its first nukes till 1964. But no nuclear war happened. Why? Did not even in Korea when the US had an even greater advantage in nuclear weapons stockpile vs the Soviets. The stakes were higher in Korea. Care to explain that?

1996 Taiwan Straits crisis? Well the US was betting on a quick conventional war. The US conventional warfighting capability was so overwhelmingly superior to China back in 1996 that US tactical nukes are moot. Not anymore today.

Why should the US risk nuclear war with China over Taiwan? The US didn't even dare risk any war with Russia for Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria. Its not the Russian tactical nukes that scared them. Its the Russian strategic arsenal that did. The US and NATO were too unsure where the threshold is for tactical nuclear exchange to progress to strategic nuclear exchange. So it essentially boils down to this: any nuking of Russia, no matter how 'tactical' could quickly escalate into full-scale nuclear war. China just removes that 'tactical exchange' phase. Going straight to strategic if any American nukes are used, big or puny. Its just a far simpler message of deterrence, and it works.

 

[Ndla2]

Off course the US might think about nuclear war with the PRC and USSR in 1958. The US had the edge in nuclear weapons stockpile in 1958 over the Soviet Union. The PRC had not even tested its first nukes till 1964. But no nuclear war happened. Why? Did not even in Korea when the US had an even greater advantage in nuclear weapons stockpile vs the Soviets. The stakes were higher in Korea. Care to explain that?

1996 Taiwan Straits crisis? Well the US was betting on a quick conventional war. The US conventional warfighting capability was so overwhelmingly superior to China back in 1996 that US tactical nukes are moot. Not anymore today.

Why should the US risk nuclear war with China over Taiwan? The US didn't even dare risk any war with Russia for Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria. Its not the Russian tactical nukes that scared them. Its the Russian strategic arsenal that did. The US and NATO were too unsure where the threshold is for tactical nuclear exchange to progress to strategic nuclear exchange. So it essentially boils down to this: any nuking of Russia, no matter how 'tactical' could quickly escalate into full-scale nuclear war. China just removes that 'tactical exchange' phase. Going straight to strategic if any American nukes are used, big or puny. Its just a far simpler message of deterrence, and it works.

And to achieve that they need at least 1000 deployed nukes just to be credible.

 

[supercat]

I had just posted the same thing in the PLAN Breaking News thread, then realized that this is probably the more appropriate place to post it - JL-3 test launch in the Bohai Sea:

 

[Anlsvrthng]

From a strategical point of view the USA can't use tactical nukes, but everyone else could.

The USA has lot of foreign bases outside of its soil, but China/Russia hasn't.

Means in a war the USA could suffer strategical defeat , because nuking Chinese assets means full out nuclear war, but nuking USA bases in war prize countries could shatter the USA global footprint, damaging the economical order that the USA depends on .

So, there is in practice no tactical nuke target outside China mainland, but lot of USA tactical target outside of USA mainland.

 

[Sardaukar20]

And to achieve that they need at least 1000 deployed nukes just to be credible.

Exactly. Reaching the milestone of 1000 strategic nuclear warheads is the most urgent matter now for China. After reaching that milestone, can China have the luxury of even considering tactical nukes. Though I still believe its better to continue sticking to building more strategic nukes. They have far greater deterrence value and fear factor.

 

[Hadoren]

Should China develop/build new tactical nuclear weapons? I mean they are pretty useful in busting bunkers and reinforced structures.

Yes, China absolutely should.

In a war, America will do two things.

1. A sustained bombing campaign on Chinese infrastructure.
2. A blockade.

Tactical nuclear weapons are essential for countering both strategies.

America's Bombing Campaign
America will launch sustained attacks on Chinese infrastructure (high-speed rail, Huawei's headquarters, factories, J-20 production, submarine production, nuclear silos, etc.).

America can bomb China with ease, but China cannot bomb America with ease. America will be bombing and destroying J-20 production, while China will be unable to damage F-35 production (unless ICBMs are used). This means that America will win any war of attrition.

These attacks will come from America's bases in Japan and Korea.

Some people wishfully imagine that China's missiles can simply knock out those bases. Totoro has given a very good explanation for why missiles alone won't work. This is especially the case when, in a war, the entire nation of Japan would be used as bases for America's bombing campaign. Using missiles alone is like Hamas launching rockets against Israel. Annoying, but not much else.

The only effective and guaranteed way of destroying America's military bases is tactical nuclear weapons. You can launch a thousand missiles at a base, but it could still be standing and mostly operational a month later. However, one tactical nuke is all you need to take out that base for a long time.

The Blockade
America will also blockade China near Singapore and Indonesia.

One of China's main counters is the anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). But let's be frank, ASBM have some big shortcomings. You're betting that a missile launched from Hainan can hit a furiously dodging ship near Singapore. Honestly, I'm skeptical it will work.

Also, these ASBM are extremely expensive, and few are produced. I think China may have less than 100. And it probably takes a year to produce the ASBM. If you're just launching ASBM with conventional warheads, you run out quick.

Adding a nuke to the ASBM makes things much much easier. You no longer have to hit a tiny target thousands of miles away. You just have to be accurate within a couple of miles.

Thus tactical nuclear weapons make the ASBM strategy actually realistic. (In fact, I bet that China's ASBM were always meant to have nuclear warheads.)

 

[gelgoog]

Off course the US might think about nuclear war with the PRC and USSR in 1958. The US had the edge in nuclear weapons stockpile in 1958 over the Soviet Union. The PRC had not even tested its first nukes till 1964. But no nuclear war happened. Why? Did not even in Korea when the US had an even greater advantage in nuclear weapons stockpile vs the Soviets. The stakes were higher in Korea. Care to explain that?
...

It was really close to happening in Korea. You have to remember back then the USA did not have operational fusion bombs yet. So it was much harder to cause the amount of destruction which can be done today. Also, the Soviet Union had already detonated the RDS-1 and put the Tu-4 bomber into production in 1949. So the US risked retaliation in return for any bombings they made.

After the Sino-Soviet split the chance the Soviet Union would come to China's aid was diminished. That is why the US could make threats like that.

The US might have had more advanced nuclear warheads in 1958, but the Soviet Union had the R-7 rocket in 1957. Sputnik was launched in 1957 in an R-7 rocket and the US knew that the Soviets had the edge in ICBM technology then. Back then there was no way to prevent an ICBM attack or even detect a launch in time. You could fuel and launch an ICBM in a couple of hours, less time than it would take for subsonic aircraft to reach the same positions.