China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[ougoah]

Again, tho’ I can’t cite a reference, I’ve read that it takes 3 warheads targeted at a single silo to “probably” neutralize it. This is what leads me to believe that the US’s SLBMs are their first-strike component. Using this calculus, 7 Ohio class loaded to the hilt could effectively target -784 silo-based missiles (a number that no country’s arsenal is even close to approaching), leaving another 7 Ohio’s and -400 Minuteman III silo-based ICBMs for second and subsequent strikes. That’s almost incomprehensibly destructive power.

Okay that's fair but that unreferenced source would have no way to know how many warheads it really takes to neutralize a single Chinese silo. It could be three direct hits or one hit 20km away. Who knows. Already a flimsy way to build a reliable theory on how nuclear exchange/initial strike would go.

They have incomprehensibly high destructive power just on the Ohio boats alone. Their entire SSBN fleet is even more warheads delivered from even more directions. Hence the need for China to match eventually but at the moment, absolutely guarantee deterrence and if that fails, mutual destruction.

It’s this preponderance of US SLBMs (and their capacity to mount 14 100 kt [silo-busting] warheads) that disinclines me to consider a silo-based ICBM force as a primary deterrent to US first-strike strategies.

Additionally, we might consider that the most-likely vector of any US first-strike against China would certainly not be a trans-polar route, but a trans-equatorial one. The US would certainly not launch an attack against China in such a way as to alert Russian air-defense systems and risk a Russian response.

It could risk a Russian response. But because there are plenty of chances and reasons it would not result in a Russian response, China has done/needs to do the sensible thing and assume it is not the case. We don't assume that things won't happen because there is a low chance for it. Even when building a dam, it's not "this is good enough" it actually is "well this is definitely good enough for all conceivable situations but we're still going to implement a factor of safety into the design and execution of the project"... this would be just for a dam or bridge where the worst consequence is xyz as opposed to the worst consequence being utter annihilation and no means to prevent that or retaliate.

So in summary, "risk" and "good enough" and "almost certain" should not and doesn't cut it.

Despite what other (long-winded) commentators might think is obvious, which is most-certainly avoided in military strategy and tactics, this observation stands.

Ain’t it funny, tho’ that some lil’ girl can presume to tell me what the subject of my post that she hijacked is? Well, she can join her sister on that list. Y’all know which one!

I backed up everything I wrote with fool-proof logic and reasoning. Try to attack those points logically if you can. Avoid saying useless nonsense like "which is most-certainly avoided in military strategy and tactics" ... you're making me laugh.

Also calling others "lil girl" don't improve your arguments. Pathetic. Readers can judge your arguments and reasoning for all it actually is now that enough rebuttal is provided.

 

[ougoah]

If you can't tolerate anyone embarrassing your crap logic and utterly baseless assumptions, then don't feel sensitive and hurt when others "hijack" the post by pointing out your failings.

Also note to all members... try to refrain from expressing your pathetic sexist attitudes with cheap nonsense. Especially junior members and new trolls.

 

[ougoah]

isn't Russia currently helping China build a missile attack early warning system?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes Russia is selling a new early warning system/ ecosystem to China. They're not helping China develop one. They are selling something China feels is worth buying. This sale presumably includes Russian assistance in the construction phase of the project. Both parties are happy to do this business because it furthers both their defence and China seems to want a "different" set of technologies for at least the purpose of providing some redundancy from what China itself has available. It is most likely also much more suitable for the task of early warning than Chinese AD based radars and ship based radars. Chinese early warning systems that were developed in the 1970s are long obsolete by today's standards and desperately need replacements.

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

You don't outsource something existential like that to anyone, not even Russia. You need to be able to control your destiny. Especially when you are an up and coming world superpower like China and not some small middle power down under.

When on earth did I ever mentioned "outsourcing"?

When I mentioned Russia, I am talking about the logic and principles behind nuclear deterrence and MAD. When Russia or the USA is attacked by nuclear weapons to a certain extent, they will NOT limit their retaliation to just the perpetrator nation/group.

Once the USA and USSR has sustained big enough damage by nuclear weapon, they will deem that their society and industry will not recover soon enough to compete with potential/emerging superpowers, and thus lost their supremacy forever. Thus, in order to prevent those untouched industrialized major nation (like Japan, Germany, France, UK, etc) from taking the chance to gain global supremacy in the power vacuum left by the badly damaged USA/USSR, the nuclear superpower(s) will nuke all other industrialized nations, and start global nuclear winter.

This is also why most of academia in this subject matter expects that a world war between Great Powers/Superpowers will yield in a geopolitical shift in world centers: the so-called Global South becoming the world center as an aftermath of a (nuclear) great war between the Global North.

 

[bustead]

It’s this preponderance of US SLBMs (and their capacity to mount 14 100 kt [silo-busting] warheads) that disinclines me to consider a silo-based ICBM force as a primary deterrent to US first-strike strategies.

Firstly, I agree that silo-based missiles should not be the primary deterrent. They are not that survivable on their own and should always be backed up by other second strike assets. However, I still think China should keep a silo-based force for all their advantages. Easy to manage and maintain, high throw weight for more warheads and decoys, easy to secure...

I was also thinking about the possibility of a "limited nuclear response" scenario. Basically, the American flexible response strategy calls for a gradual escalation. For example, the Americans would drop a B61 with a yield of 300 tons first in an attempt to coerce/pressure China. Then they would start using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield until either they win or they choose to launch a first strike.

One of the possible ways to break this cycle is to basically escalate immediately and force the US to stop or face total destruction. A silo based missile is perfect for this job. High throw weight means a lot of decoys so American BMD systems are unlikely to intercept the warhead(s). Also, silos are unlikely to be targeted at first (because the US still wanted to avoid nuclear destruction) so they can be used to fire the first shots. Finally, mobile ICBMs and SSBNs can be kept in reserve and hidden to avoid wasting these forces at all.

 

[Richard Santos]

China can only take advantage of the silo if china builds a different missile then the DF-41, or at least a version of the DF -41 with a substantially more powerful first stage. Perhaps a version with a much more powerful but much shorter burning booster. Such a missile will not be as efficient, but because of a much higher acceleration and shorter burn time, will be better place to evade any future weapon that targetThe missile doing the boost phase.

If china could threaten the US with total destruction, the US can also do the same to china. it doesn’t gain anything, it does encourage the US to resume its cold wars first strike doctrine. Given the enormous head start the US enjoy, plus its vastly larger stockpile of fissile material with which to pursue a nuclear build up, definitely pursuing mutual assured destruction would be stupid and disastrous blunder for china.

 

[ougoah]

China can only take advantage of the silo if china builds a different missile then the DF-41, or at least a version of the DF -41 with a substantially more powerful first stage. Perhaps a version with a much more powerful but much shorter burning booster. Such a missile will not be as efficient, but because of a much higher acceleration and shorter burn time, will be better place to evade any future weapon that targetThe missile doing the boost phase.

If china could threaten the US with total destruction, the US can also do the same to china. it doesn’t gain anything, it does encourage the US to resume its cold wars first strike doctrine. Given the enormous head start the US enjoy, plus its vastly larger stockpile of fissile material with which to pursue a nuclear build up, definitely pursuing mutual assured destruction would be stupid and disastrous blunder for china.

Your logic is flawed. Pursuing MAD capability (in your terms) has nothing to do with US head start and stockpile size. You're basically saying China shouldn't bother with stockpiling more than they have simply because the US has more and can put more into stockpile. What difference does it make whether the US can destroy China 100 times over or 10000 times over? The issue is for China to achieve or improve MAD capability. US stockpile and resources have nothing to do with this.

So if China could threaten the US with total destruction, the US can do the same. Therefore it's better if only the US can destroy China and China shouldn't bother pursuing the means to ensure to a much greater degree, their ability to retaliate? Supposedly because the US has a head start and greater stockpile of warheads? Something I missed? Where is this "disastrous blunder" we keep hearing about but it's never elaborated or explained properly.

 

[bustead]

If china could threaten the US with total destruction, the US can also do the same to china. it doesn’t gain anything, it does encourage the US to resume its cold wars first strike doctrine. Given the enormous head start the US enjoy, plus its vastly larger stockpile of fissile material with which to pursue a nuclear build up, definitely pursuing mutual assured destruction would be stupid and disastrous blunder for china.

Mutual deterrence is the goal of achieving MAD capabilities. If we can destroy each other, it will be wise not to start a fight at all because it end badly for both of us. Thus, if the US thinks that it will be destroyed in a nuclear war regardless of how dead China would become after the fallout has settled, the US would not be interested in fighting at all.

Also, the entire idea behind second strike capabilities is that a second strike can still devastate the enemy even if they launch a first strike first. The US moved away from the first strike/counterforce doctrine after the 60s and developed the flexible response doctrine because it realized that the Soviets cannot be disarmed with a first strike.

The US does have a head start. However, second strike capabilities is not directly related to the nuclear stockpile that your adversary has. If your nuclear assets are survivable and cannot be disarmed realistically, then your second strike guarantees are credible. Moreover, China already has around 2.9 tons of Plutonium, which is enough for around 900 warheads. China also has around 18 tons of HEU so that's another 1000 warheads at least. Additionally, China is still producing tritium and is able to build thermonuclear weapons so building more nuclear warheads is definitely something that China can do. If China does start manufacturing warheads again, it will only be a matter of time for China before MAD capabilities are achieved.

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

There is a poster here who is advocating that China should have less than 1000 warheads. He posted a few times saying it makes economic sense. And the other convulted geopolitical conspiracy theory on why it makes sense. He asserts that 1000 warhead is a fantasy number. He is happy to promote a conspiracy theory that the Chinese intelligence agency would kill people for saying that there is 1000 nuclear warheads.

First of all, the figure of 1000 nuclear warheads have been quoted by the Global Times, Chinamil, CGTN, and other Chinese defence analysts. There is no conspiracy. The GT is the defacto mouthpiece of the CPC. When they announce something there, it usually happens. Take the HK national security bill for example. Another great example is It was announced on GT months before it went into effect. GT also quoted correctly about some PLA casualties during the Galwan clash with India, 8 months before the official confirmation by China. Even the western media takes the GT's words seriously.

The argument to expand China's arsenal to 1000 warheads has been intensely debated. We would not go there again. Besides, as a GT opinion piece said, 1000 warheads is a milestone, not the final destination. It seems that China is setting itself up to go further, but it does not want to mention how far for now.

This poster has many times in the past posted many conspiracy theories about China. Through these convoluted conspiracy theories, he positions that China's strategic weaknesses, are actually 'advantages'. So this lack of nuclear warheads being a 'good thing' theory is yet another one from him. He likes to dismiss other people's opinions as childish, moronic, and baseless. Well, this is the same fella who felt the need to admire the fashion of Qing dynasty sailors on the doomed Chinese battleships during the first Sino-Japanese War; on the Type 055 thread. Why? I guess I've seen enough crap from this poster to come to a conclusion that he loves a weak China. I don't need to name him. You would know who this fella is.

I would be nice if you can calm down and address your post directly at those you wish to address to, instead of beating around the bushes. 无能者才旁敲侧击。

 

[Sardaukar20]

I would be nice if you can calm down and address your post directly at those you wish to address to, instead of beating around the bushes. 无能者才旁敲侧击。

No need. I don't wanna see anymore pages of your nonsense here as you try to debate with me.