China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[jimmyjames30x30]

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

I merely post the question "why 1000, in particular", and you accuse me of all these crimes. Hang me up like a Class Enemy (阶级敌人) for other zealous fools to throw stones at. This is foolish and laughable.

First of all, I agree with the real military planners in charge of managing and deciding how many nuclear warheads PLARF are to be equipped. I trust their expertise. Therefore, whatever number PLARF has right now, or in the future, are good numbers. I agree with them, and will not act as if I know better than those real experts and decision-makers.

Secondly, I also agree with what the propaganda department/agencies are doing with the "war of rhetoric", in which they taunt the idea of "boosting warhead number to at least 1000" in the realm of public media. This is because I understood this as a matter of publicity and propaganda. I agree with what they are doing. But I also understand that they are NO rocket force experts, nor are they decision makers.

However, I understand this forum to be a technical PLA-watching forum. We are talking here in technical term. We are NOT fighting a media/propaganda war here. We are not preparing the Chinese public to embrace a change in PLARF's upcoming boost in number of nuclear warheads. We are debating about feasibility, necessity, capability and doctrine here. This is exactly why I question the specific "1000 warhead" number, from a hypothetical experts and decision-maker's point of view.

My starting point is clear and simple: nothing you guys comes up with can convince me that 1000 warhead, in particular, is necessarily better than any other numbers (including what the PLARF has right now and all other numbers, say, 10000 warheads)? Why not 999, why not 1001? Why not 5000? Why not 50,000? Why is 1000 the magic number?

I have no problem with people saying that the PLARF needs to vastly increase its nuclear arsenals, what I do have a problem, is for you guys to just throw out a random whole number, and act as if it is the absolute golden true result.

What's worse, is for people like you, who does nothing but use Class Warfare (阶级斗争) tactics to bash and attack people like me for asking questions.

 

[ougoah]

I merely post the question "why 1000, in particular", and you accuse me of all these crimes. Hang me up like a Class Enemy (阶级敌人) for other zealous fools to throw stones at. This is foolish and laughable.

First of all, I agree with the real military planners in charge of managing and deciding how many nuclear warheads PLARF are to be equipped. I trust their expertise. Therefore, whatever number PLARF has right now, or in the future, are good numbers. I agree with them, and will not act as if I know better than those real experts and decision-makers.

Secondly, I also agree with what the propaganda department/agencies are doing with the "war of rhetoric", in which they taunt the idea of "boosting warhead number to at least 1000" in the realm of public media. This is because I understood this as a matter of publicity and propaganda. I agree with what they are doing. But I also understand that they are NO rocket force experts, nor are they decision makers.

However, I understand this forum to be a technical PLA-watching forum. We are talking here in technical term. We are NOT fighting a media/propaganda war here. We are not preparing the Chinese public to embrace a change in PLARF's upcoming boost in number of nuclear warheads. We are debating about feasibility, necessity, capability and doctrine here. This is exactly why I question the specific "1000 warhead" number, from a hypothetical experts and decision-maker's point of view.

My starting point is clear and simple: nothing you guys comes up with can convince me that 1000 warhead, in particular, is necessarily better than any other numbers (including what the PLARF has right now and all other numbers, say, 10000 warheads)? Why not 999, why not 1001? Why not 5000? Why not 50,000? Why is 1000 the magic number?

I have no problem with people saying that the PLARF needs to vastly increase its nuclear arsenals, what I do have a problem, is for you guys to just throw out a random whole number, and act as if it is the absolute golden true result.

What's worse, is for people like you, who does nothing but use Class Warfare (阶级斗争) tactics to bash and attack people like me for asking questions.

I don't think anyone here has firmly suggested 1000 is some number of significance. It's always been used in conversation as a ballpark figure.

You agree that whatever the real number of warheads is, it is decided based on having the greatest possible amount of knowledge about the topic and everything associated with it, made with the most accurate risk assessment derived using the most comprehensive picture - something no one outside of those in the upper echelons in China have access to.

We don't know what the real number of Chinese warheads is at. It's estimated to be at the very absolute least 300 with a material cap maybe around the 1000 to 2000 mark based on very flimsy guesses and estimates on assumed material limits which are themselves based on nothing more than number of known reactors and fissile material imports for energy. It ignores unknown reactors which have no reason to be publicly disclosed and it ignores China's own potential ore supply.

I think we all agree that China deserves and should have or strive to have a very credible and reliable MAD deterrence based not only on technology of delivery but also sheer numbers of warheads and missiles.

None of us here are really fit to debate "feasibility, necessity, capability and doctrine" more than another member. However some people are plain wrong because their "facts" are inaccurate and full of holes, their logic is absurdly laughable, which make their conclusions equally stupid and incorrect. There is a difference between debating and suggesting things using reasoning and those who argue with proclamations.

I don't think I am/should be part of the group you are directing your post at. I have only ever said it's my personal opinion that China indeed already has far more than 300 warheads because that's a 30 to 40 year old conservative (lowered) estimate and something Chinese state has been happy to "admit" to when they wanted to keep a low profile and certainly not present themselves as a nuclear threat or irresponsible nuclear power like the US has been and still is (huge stockpile, multiple accidents, multiple leaks, multiple loss of warheads, no NFU).

Why don't you stop thinking about the number 1000. It's been used as a ballpark figure of speech. You can imagine it being a range then like 500 to 1500. The people claiming this should be a minimum are essentially using this as a general ballpark for minimum number of warheads that can tey believe can either be launched or survive an overwhelming first strike in time to devastate all aggressors wherever they may be. Those are personal opinions but valid ones otherwise why would the US and Russia both keep more than 3000 warheads even after efforts to reduce them?

 

[ougoah]

My starting point is clear and simple: nothing you guys comes up with can convince me that 1000 warhead, in particular, is necessarily better than any other numbers (including what the PLARF has right now and all other numbers, say, 10000 warheads)? Why not 999, why not 1001? Why not 5000? Why not 50,000? Why is 1000 the magic number?

This isn't anyone's job to point out how and why. You missed the point entirely. Again ignore the specific number being used in conversation.

It's basically this simple. A summary of the chronology of the conversation surrounding this topic.

1. How many warheads does China have?

2. Who knows the really old estimate is 300 and China has never really confirmed any of that and only ever talked about it in very vague ways like "we have about as much as UK and France". UK + France or UK or France?? Who knows.

3. China should aim to stay at or increase warhead count to a better fraction of what the US and Russia hold. They don't have more people or interests to protect and they don't necessarily have anywhere near the same potential for future. The US is also being very threatening and will only up the aggression with time. China should be prepared and provide greater deterrence.

At this point the number - ballpark figure of 1000 warheads has been thrown around. It's just a way of saying if 300 is true, it feels like it's not anywhere near enough. A minimum of 1000 should be the case since it's so achievable and still roughly only 30% of what the US and Russia each hold. So since it's achievable, affordable, and will make it safer for China compared to a measly stockpile of 300 warheads, many of which would be destroyed and intercepted in case of organised first strike, then why not increase stockpile (ASSUMING IT HASN'T) and if it has, then great. Conversation on "1000" warheads is moot.

Then between these points some members interject with literally "you guys are stupid and I'm real smart and knowledgeable and 1000 warheads is impossible/silly/blunder" etc etc.

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

I don't think anyone here has firmly suggested 1000 is some number of significance. It's always been used in conversation as a ballpark figure.

You agree that whatever the real number of warheads is, it is decided based on having the greatest possible amount of knowledge about the topic and everything associated with it, made with the most accurate risk assessment derived using the most comprehensive picture - something no one outside of those in the upper echelons in China have access to.

We don't know what the real number of Chinese warheads is at. It's estimated to be at the very absolute least 300 with a material cap maybe around the 1000 to 2000 mark based on very flimsy guesses and estimates on assumed material limits which are themselves based on nothing more than number of known reactors and fissile material imports for energy. It ignores unknown reactors which have no reason to be publicly disclosed and it ignores China's own potential ore supply.

I think we all agree that China deserves and should have or strive to have a very credible and reliable MAD deterrence based not only on technology of delivery but also sheer numbers of warheads and missiles.

None of us here are really fit to debate "feasibility, necessity, capability and doctrine" more than another member. However some people are plain wrong because their "facts" are inaccurate and full of holes, their logic is absurdly laughable, which make their conclusions equally stupid and incorrect. There is a difference between debating and suggesting things using reasoning and those who argue with proclamations.

I don't think I am/should be part of the group you are directing your post at. I have only ever said it's my personal opinion that China indeed already has far more than 300 warheads because that's a 30 to 40 year old conservative (lowered) estimate and something Chinese state has been happy to "admit" to when they wanted to keep a low profile and certainly not present themselves as a nuclear threat or irresponsible nuclear power like the US has been and still is (huge stockpile, multiple accidents, multiple leaks, multiple loss of warheads, no NFU).

Why don't you stop thinking about the number 1000. It's been used as a ballpark figure of speech. You can imagine it being a range then like 500 to 1500. The people claiming this should be a minimum are essentially using this as a general ballpark for minimum number of warheads that can tey believe can either be launched or survive an overwhelming first strike in time to devastate all aggressors wherever they may be. Those are personal opinions but valid ones otherwise why would the US and Russia both keep more than 3000 warheads even after efforts to reduce them?

I have no problem with your points. I totally respect your logic. I have already left this conversation, until that Sardaukar20 threw that really unfriendly comment hinting at me and attempting to usher others to brand me as a traitor, a 公知 and an enemy of the Chinese people. I can take any criticism with no problem. But I cannot let go of an ill-attempt of a Class Warfare dirty tactic at me, without a proper counter.

 

[ougoah]

I have no problem with your points. I totally respect your logic. I have already left this conversation, until that Sardaukar20 threw that really unfriendly comment hinting at me and attempting to usher others to brand me as a traitor, a 公知 and an enemy of the Chinese people. I can take any criticism with no problem. But I cannot let go of an ill-attempt of a Class Warfare dirty tactic at me, without a proper counter.

Fair enough. That is annoying although often doesn't have bad intentions. I think some members can occasionally misinterpret intent and be overly sensitive on topics.

 

[Sardaukar20]

L

I merely post the question "why 1000, in particular", and you accuse me of all these crimes. Hang me up like a Class Enemy (阶级敌人) for other zealous fools to throw stones at. This is foolish and laughable.

First of all, I agree with the real military planners in charge of managing and deciding how many nuclear warheads PLARF are to be equipped. I trust their expertise. Therefore, whatever number PLARF has right now, or in the future, are good numbers. I agree with them, and will not act as if I know better than those real experts and decision-makers.

Secondly, I also agree with what the propaganda department/agencies are doing with the "war of rhetoric", in which they taunt the idea of "boosting warhead number to at least 1000" in the realm of public media. This is because I understood this as a matter of publicity and propaganda. I agree with what they are doing. But I also understand that they are NO rocket force experts, nor are they decision makers.

However, I understand this forum to be a technical PLA-watching forum. We are talking here in technical term. We are NOT fighting a media/propaganda war here. We are not preparing the Chinese public to embrace a change in PLARF's upcoming boost in number of nuclear warheads. We are debating about feasibility, necessity, capability and doctrine here. This is exactly why I question the specific "1000 warhead" number, from a hypothetical experts and decision-maker's point of view.

My starting point is clear and simple: nothing you guys comes up with can convince me that 1000 warhead, in particular, is necessarily better than any other numbers (including what the PLARF has right now and all other numbers, say, 10000 warheads)? Why not 999, why not 1001? Why not 5000? Why not 50,000? Why is 1000 the magic number?

I have no problem with people saying that the PLARF needs to vastly increase its nuclear arsenals, what I do have a problem, is for you guys to just throw out a random whole number, and act as if it is the absolute golden true result.

What's worse, is for people like you, who does nothing but use Class Warfare (阶级斗争) tactics to bash and attack people like me for asking questions.

Haven't been reading the news and the discussions over here haven't you? Your essay is a pure example of just how clueless you are in this thread.

The 1000 warheads is a figure that has been quoted many times from the Chinese media. Its open knowledge here. China never said that 1000 warheads is a magic number. Its a milestone. Get it?

Don't bring up class warfare BS. You're clueless as hell. You don't even know where the 1000 warheads figure came from, LOL! You're being hanged out to dry because you're just an arrogant dunce. You have no facts, and you wanna be so combative? LOL!

 

[Sardaukar20]

Fair enough. That is annoying although often doesn't have bad intentions. I think some members can occasionally misinterpret intent and be overly sensitive on topics.

Ougoah. We don't need to talk to this fella. His has a history of quarrelling within the various threads in SDF. He is sending me PMs with sexual insults. This is not a person with integrity. He is not worth our time to please or debate.

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

L

Haven't been reading the news and the discussions over here haven't you? Your essay is a pure example of just how clueless you are in this thread.

The 1000 warheads is a figure that has been quoted many times from the Chinese media. Its open knowledge here. China never said that 1000 warheads is a magic number. Its a milestone. Get it?

You're the one who don't read and understand what I have been saying. I clearly stated in my "essay" that I "agree with what the propaganda department/agencies are doing with the "war of rhetoric", in which they taunt the idea of "boosting warhead number to at least 1000" in the realm of public media."

Do I need to translate this into children's language so that you could understand?

 

[escobar]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Strangelove]

452 yuan for the set, more sexy unboxing coming...